Social fiction tackles significant issues using a diverse assortment of entertainment media. From a social scientific perspective, the value of social fiction should not be underestimated. The subjects addressed, sometimes cloaked in metaphor, can frequently be serious and consequential. Among these fictional genres is online gaming. Like visual and performance art, such gaming frequently brings to the fore topics only rarely considered in customary lifeworlds (German/Deutsch, Lebenswelten [MP3]). Methodologically, the instrumentality or agency of forming and governing fictional nations will be studied using ethnography (participant observation) and my twin modes of phenomenological analysis: Heartfulness Inquiry™ and The Echoing Practice™. The amalgamation of ethnography and phenonomenological analysis is not original, but my approach is relatively unique.

This monograph is an odd historical novel. The society decribed in the novel and the status or position of the writer are fictitous, but the thoughts expressed in the text, and the personal experiences, are genuine. Whether the perspectives are accurate or valid is for you to decide. I would never claim to be an authority on any subject. Honestly, I immediately distrust anyone—other than the Prophets of ʾAllꞌah (Arabic, اللّه [MP3], “the God”) sub°ḥān°h wa•taʿātaỳ (Arabic, سُبْحَانْه وَتَعَالَى [MP3], “glorified and exalted be He” or “SWT”) and Their successors—who makes personal claims. The novel itself is an attempt at applied utopianism. It was conceived by German Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (MP3), 1885–1977, and developed by British Marxist philosopher and true libertarian communist Roy Bhaskar (MP3; Hindi, राम रॉय भास्कर [MP3], Rāma Rôya Bhāskara), 1944–2014.

I use my own transliteration system, throughout this monograph, for Arabic and Persian. A few additional Arabo–Persian languages have been partially supported. Transliteration differs, both in objective and method, from Romanization. The first is designed to allow the reader to convert between the script used in the transliteration and the original text. Some systems perform better than others in this regard. The second is intended for readability. My scheme began as the Arabic transliteration system of the International Organization for Standardization (the ISO). I promptly recognized its limitations. In making significant modifications to the ISO, I have emulated the gold standard for another script, the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). With my strategy, one can errorlessly convert between the Roman and the Arabic or Persian texts.

Luxemburgism is a libertarian communist tendency which, unlike some other left–libertarian currents, acknowledges the importance of direct as well as indirect democracy. Autonomist Antifa is a libertarian communist commitment to fighting fascism and its evil cousins. Third–camp socialist Hal Draper’s (1914–1990) socialism from below, later adopted by those within a broad cross section of currents, is a left–libertarian disavowal of the socialism from above, or so–called authoritarian socialism, which single–handedly wreaked havoc upon the 20ᵗʰ century. Authoritarianism has, while inscrutably to me, been appealing to some people. It may be fine if the authoritarians are your friends. What happens, however, if the authoritarians are your sworn enemies? A true libertarian communism will, optimistically, promote a positive view of communism and its wonderful possibilities.

Bhaskarian critical realism is a metatheory and a critical theory which, like all critical theories, incorporates a methodology for emancipation or, in this case, a methodology for actualizing libertarian communism. Intersectionality, tenaciously grounded in Black feminism (Arabic, نِسْوِيَّة مِن السَوْدَاء [MP3], nis°wiyyaẗ min ʾal•saw°dāˁ) and critical race theory (Arabic, نِسَائِيَّة الْعُنْصُرِيَّة النَقْدِيَّة [MP3], nisā⫯yiyyaẗ ʾal•ʿunṣuriyyaẗ ʾal•naq°diyyaẗ), is legal scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw’s (born 1959) critical theory. According to this perspective, individuals and cohorts of one sort of another will traverse diverse intersections on a metaphorical roadmap. Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (born 1948) invites her readers to recognize the matrix of domination, shift the centers of their thinking to the other or the socially marginalized peoples of the world, and, finally, reconstruct their knowledge.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ (Arabic, طَرِيقَة البَاهُوِيَّة [MP3]), the namesake of Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū (Arabo–Persian/Fārisiyyaẗ–ʿArabiyyaẗ, حَضْرَت سُلْطَان بَاهُو [MP3]), ʿalay°hi ʾal•ssalām (Arabic, عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام [MP3], “upon Him be peace” or “AS”), has been established as an allegorical Western branch of Bāhū’s AS Punjabi (Persian/Fār°sí, پِنْجَابِی [MP3], Pun°ǧābí; Urdu, پُنْجَابِی [MP3], Pun°ǧābí; Shahmukhi Punjabi, پَنْجَابِی [MP3], Pan°ǧābí; and Guramukhi Punjabi, ਪੰਜਾਬੀ [MP3] order. Although it is an imaginative and a fictitious, not a genuine, spiritual path, its basics, not including the silly statements concerning this servant’s pretended position of leadership, have been gathered from historical source materials. Find a real path, not this one.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective is a continuation of the order or path founded by Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS. Here is a lineup of that path’s name, the Qadri–Sarvari Path, in numerous languages:

Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS was, truly, among the leading Exemplars of the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy (bhakti as originally Sanskrit/Saṃskrtam, भक्ति [MP3], bhakti; or Urdu, بْھَکْتِی [MP3], b°haḱ°tí, “involvement” with the beloved) movement. Bāhū AS, “with ʾAllꞌah” SWT, was a very cleverly, indeed an astutely, formulated portmanteau (Arabic, مَزْج كَلِمَات [MP3], maz°ǧ kalimāt, “blending of words”) by His own mother, Bíbí Rās°tí (Persian, بِیبِی رَاسْتِی; MP3, “Grande Dame; MP3, Truth”) ssalām ʾAllꞌah ʿalay°hā (Arabic, سَّلَام الله عَلَيْهَا; MP3, “peace of ʾAllꞌah be upon her” or “SAA”). In her exalted rank as the virtuous, sanctified, and loving mother of Bāhū AS, she eternally abides, without any exception which I can personally imagine, within the company of the most blessed women to have ever inhabited the Earth.

Linguistically, the name Bāhū AS was formulated by Bíbí Rās°tí SAA from the Indo–European “bā” (Persian, بَا; MP3, “with”) and the Semitic “Hū” (Arabic, هُوَ; MP3, Huwa or Hū, “He,” i.e., ʾAllꞌah, ﷲ SWT). Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS wrote principally in Persian. Some translated samples of his writing have been incorporated into this monograph. Here is the first wonderful illustration of His work:

Whoso shalt study this book, by day and by night, with sincerity, certitude, and conviction will become cognizant of the divine [Arabic, إِلهِيّ; MP3, ⫰ilhiyy] secrets. He hath no need of instruction [Arabic, تَلْقِين; MP3, tal°qīn] and teaching [Arabic, تَعْلِيم; MP3, taʿ°līm] from a living guide [Arabic, مُرْشِد; MP3], mur°šid].

Lesser Apostles or Prophets, ʿalay°him ʾal•ssalām (Arabic, عَلَيْهِم السَّلَام [MP3], “upon Them be peace” or “AS”), may appear under the authority of each major Prophet. Subject to the sovereign Will of ʾAllꞌah SWT, that sacred pattern repeats itself again and again. Some lesser Prophets AS, or all of Them during the present age, might not be divinely authorized to readily broadcast their Stations. In either case, a lesser Prophet will remain a lesser Prophet whether, on the one hand, He is afforded the permission, either by ʾAllꞌah SWT or by the Major Prophet, to forthrightly promulgate His Own Prophethood to the entirety of humanity, or, on the other, He is requested to maintain His silence on this matter. To my understanding, one of the eminent personifications of lesser Prophethood, even though He is not usually recognized as occupying that position, is the Apostle Paul AS.

A Man born Saul (Hebrew, שָׁאוּל‬ [MP3], Šāʾūl, “Asked or Prayed for”) became, in just a single moment, the Apostle Paul (Latin, Paulus [MP3]; or Hellēnistikḗ Koinḗ/Common Greek, Παῦλος [MP3], Paûlos, “Small or Humble One”)AS. Thus, Paul AS was transmuted from making a heavenly request to attaining self–annihilation (Arabic, فَنَاء [MP3], fanāˁ). Paul AS was not counted among the twelve apostles. No matter, after an initiatory Revelation (Arabic, تَنْزِيل [MP3], Tan°zīl), as with each Prophet, from the Major Prophet Jesus Christ (Latin, Christus Iēsus [MP3]; Common Greek, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός [MP3], I̓ēsoûs Christós; or Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָשִׁיחַ [MP3], Yēšūʿạ hạ•Māšiyḥạ, “Deliverance, the Annointed One or Messiah”) AS on a journey, Paul AS proclaimed Himself an Apostle or a Messenger of ʾAllꞌah SWT. In Paul’s AS heavenly epistles, He elucidated His Own Authority.

I will now provide an abbreviated discussion of the origins of the Bahá’í Faith (Arabic, دِّيَانَة البَهَائِيَّة [MP3], Ddiyānaẗ ʾal•Bahā⫯yiyyaẗ; or Persian, دِیَانَتِ بَهَائِی [MP3], Diýānat•i Bahā⫯ýí, “Judgment or Religion of the Glory”). That discussion shall be immediately followed by a much more pointed application to the issue, now under consideration, of the exalted greater and lesser Prophets:

The Prophet–Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, Bahá’u’lláh (Arabic, بَهَاء الله [MP3], Bahāˁ ʾAllꞌah, “Glory of God”) AQH (Arabic, عَلَيْهِ القُرَّة الحُورِيَّة [MP3], ʿalay°hi ʾal•qurraẗ ʾal•Ḥūriyyaẗ, “upon Him be the solace of the Black–in–White–Eyed Maiden”), lived in this world between the years 1817–1892. His heavenly Precursor, and the first Twin Major Prophet to manifest on this planet, was the Exalted Báb (Arabic, بَاب الأَعْلَى [MP3], Bāb ʾal•⫯Aʿ°laỳ, “the Exalted Gate”) ABYA (Arabic, لَيْهِ البَهَاء مَن يُظْهِر الله [MP3], ʿalay°hi ʾal•Bahāˁ Man Yuẓ°hir ʾAllꞌah, “upon Him be the Glory of Him Whom ʾAllꞌah shall make Manifest”). The martyrdom of the Báb (Arabic, البَاب [MP3], ʾal•Bāb, “the Gate”) ABYA, in Iran’s City of Tabriz (Persian, شَهْرِسْتَانِ تَبْرِیز تُویِ اِیْرَان [MP3], Šah°ris°tan•i Tab°ríz tuý•i ʾIý°rān), brought to a tragic and, truly, heartbreaking close His regrettably brief but momentous life, 1819–1850.

Bahá’u’lláh AQH and the Báb ABYA, the twin Major Prophets of ʾAllꞌah SWT, were perhaps foreshadowed by twin Minor Islamic (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيّ [MP3], ⫰Is°lāmiyy) Prophets, Šay°ẖ ⫯Aḥ°mad ʾib°n Zay°n ʾal•Ddīn ⫰Ib°rāhīm ʾal•⫯Aḥ°sā⫰yiyy (Arabic, شَيخ أَحمَد اِبن زَيْن الدِّين اِبن إِبْرَاهِيم الأَحْسَائِيّ‎ [MP3]) AS, 1753–1826, and Siyyid Kāzim bin Qāsim ʾal•Ḥusay°niyy ʾal•Raš°tiyy (Arabic, سِيِّد كَاظِم بِن قَاسِم الحُسَيْنِيّ الرَشْتِيّ‎ [MP3]) AS, 1793–1843. This pair of truly exceptional Men readied the Islamic Age for the dual advents of the Báb ABYA and Bahá’u’lláh AQH. Given the odd chance that my reading of the pertinent texts is accurate, modernity witnessed the dramatic theophanies of twin Major Prophets and twin Minor Prophets, too. In addition, the Letters of the Living (Arabic, حُرُوف الحَيّ [MP3], Ḥurūf ʾal•Ḥayy), or a select Number of them, may have been Lesser Prophets to the Báb ABYA.

To the best of my knowledge, Bahá’u’lláh AQH never negated the simple possibility of lesser Prophets arising over the course, now concealed from human knowledge, of His divine Dispensation or Age. My personal sense, though not one based upon any textual evidence per se, is that one, possibly more, lesser Prophets—such as Paul Who clearly asserted lesser Prophethood to the major Prophet Jesus Christ—invariably manifest as receptive Moons to the Sun of Each major Prophet. By the same token, Bahá’u’lláh AQH has covenanted with us, in His Sacred and Holy Texts, that no lesser Prophets will proclaim Their Stations during the present Dispensation of grace. Such adverse and regrettable pronouncements shall instantaneously bring to light that these individuals are nothing more than prevaricators and charlatans. Prayers for their immortal souls might be very appropriate.

Moreover, as precisely and indubitably penned by Bahá’u’lláh AQH Himself:

Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.

The Universal House of Justice (Arabic, بَيْت العَدْل أَعْظَم [MP3], Bay°t ʾal•ʿAd°l ʾal•⫯Aʿ°ẓam; or in Persianized form/Fār°sí•i šudan/(Persian, فَارْسِیِ شُدَن [MP3]), بَیْت‌َالعَدْل اعْظَم [MP3], Baý°tālʿad°l ʾAʿ°ẓam, “Most Great House of Justice”) is this world of being’s wellspring of eternal life, life–giving waters, or fountain of living waters (Arabic, وِرْد [MP3], wir°d) for authoritative divine guidance to humanity. That guidance must be unceasingly impeccable (Arabic, مَعْصُوم [MP3], maʿ°ṣūm), pure and protected (Arabic, عِصْمَة [MP3], ʿiṣ°maẗ), and exempt from the commission of any moral error (Arabic, خَطَأ [MP3], ẖaṭ⫯ā, or خِطْء [MP3], ẖiṭ°ˁ). Therefore, the Universal House of Justice, operating in its exalted station, seems to have made, for the time being, ostensibly functioning lesser Prophets unnecessary. Whether the current pattern will persist through future Dispensations is, of course, an unknown.

The members of the Universal House of Justice, like their forebears in authority under the Bahá’í Covenant (Arabic, عَهْد [MP3], ʿAh°d), have been men. The Universal House of Justice collectively and its predecessors individually might enjoy a polyandry in spirit with the most hallowed, adored, and exalted Guardian Angel (Arabic, مَلَاك الحَارِس [MP3], Malāk ʾal•Ḥaris) of the Bahá’í Dispensation. We know and love Her as the Black–in–White–Eyed Maiden (Arabic, الحُورِيَّة [MP3], ʾal•Ḥūriyyaẗ) AS. Through the resplendent Maiden AS, according to ʾAllꞌah’s SWT Will, the hegemony of the male sex occurred only in the realm of outward appearances, the physical world. That domination is, in short, an illusion. In reality, it is women, not men, who are elevated in spirituality and excellence. All women, and possibly some men, can, in this Æon of Glory, express the Maiden’s AS grace.

An ⫯Uway°siyy (Arabic, أُوَيْسِيّ [MP3]) transmission is an inward, spiritual communication from Muḥammad (Arabic, مُحَمَّد [MP3], “Praised One”) SAAW or other divine beings, to a true believer. Unlike other supernal conveyances of grace or sanctity, neither the bestower of the blessing nor its direct recipient are in immediate physical proximity. This heavenly act of consecration occurs in the sublime stations of concealment, not in the lowly realms of exposition. ⫯Uway°siyy transmissions may thus be considered, in a certain sense, to be miraculous. Needless to say, the potent mechanisms operating in the celestial, empyrean Kingdom vis–à–vis the mundane, prosaic dimensions should be correlated with nothing less than great vigilance and reservation. To put it another way, the divine Realms should not be regarded as manifestations of the planes of physicality. The opposite is true.

In a outstretched spectrum of diverse mentally abstracted and otherworldly states, including inspired dreams (Arabic, مَنَامَات [MP3], manāmāt; or أَحْلَام [MP3], ⫯aḥ°lām) and luminous visions (Arabic, رُؤًى‏ [MP3], ru⫯waṇỳ; تَصَوُّرَات [MP3], taṣawwurāt; or بَصِيرَات [MP3], baṣīrāt), vows of loyalty, like the oaths of fealty once owed by knights to medieval European feudal lords, are pledged one to another. Yet, a state of receptivity in spirit is negated by gullibility. Since these events transpire in unconscious states, hypnotic suggestability may be maximized. It, consequently, becomes important, in my view, that the recipient of the transmission does not allow the bane of wishful thinking, the vainglorious fancies of self–delusion, or the deathbed of egotism to dominate, and to unwittingly distort, that purported spiritual gnosis or knowledge. Self–deception leads to many downfalls from grace.

The following words are either cognates or transliterations of gnosis (Ancient Greek/A̓rchaía Hellēniká, γνῶσις [MP3], gnō̂sis):

The term ⫯Uway°siyy is named in honor of the illustrious saint, ⫯Uway°s ʾib°n ⫯Amīr ʾib°n Har°b ʾal•Qar°niyy (Arabic, أُوَيس اِبْن أَمِير اِبْن هَرب القَرْنِيّ [MP3]). He was the first individual known to have experienced such a celestial encounter. Although ⫯Uway°s ʾal•Qar°niyy lived as Muḥammad’s SAAW contemporary, the two of them never had the opportunity to meet face to face. Yet, tradition has it, this venerated Yemenite (Arabic, يَمَنِيّ [MP3], Yamaniyy) was the recipient, within the world of spirits (Arabic, العَالَم الأَرْوَاح [MP3], ʾal•ʿālam ʾal•arwāḥ), of a sacred transmission from the beloved Muḥammad SAAW. Linguistically, ⫯Uway°s (Arabic, أُوَيس) translates as “wolf cub,” while ʾal•Qar°niyy (Arabic, القَرْنِيّ) is “the centenary.” The blessing of being in his spiritual presence (Arabic, حَضْرَة [MP3], ḥaḍ°raẗ) may be counted as one of my many aspirations for the world to come.

Customarily, bẹn Hẹʿrəšẹʿl is addressed, all too politely, as píra ū mur°šida. This Urdu honorific is a compound phrase from Persian, Urdu, and Arabic. Pír (Persian, پِیر [MP3]) may be translated as either “elder” or “elderly man.” It fits. Surely, at old with “full–blown osteoporosis” and osteoarthritis, bẹn Hẹʿrəšẹʿl is fast becoming an old man. Ū (و [MP3]), like ʾaw°ra (Urdu, اوْرَ [MP3]), is an Urdu term for “and.” Mur°šid (مُرْشِد [MP3]), finally, remains an Arabic designation for a guide possessing “integrity, maturity, and sensibility.” That being said, bẹn Hẹʿrəšẹʿl remains a simple and modest man. Oblivious to any of the élitist frivolities of temporal salutations, he regards himself, above all, as a servant of ʾAllꞌah SWT and of all humanity (Arabic, عَبْد الله وَالبَشَرِيَّة الجَمْعَاء [MP3], ʿab°d ʾAllꞌah wa•ʾal•bašariyyaẗ ʾal•ǧam°ʿāˁ). There is, in his heart, no more blessed honor.

Another example of an alleged ⫯Uway°siyy transmission from Bāhū AS is Hazrat Syedna Riaz Ahmed Sarkar Gohar Shahi (Urdū, حَضْرَةَ سِیُدْنَا رِیَاضَ احْمَد سَرْکَارَ گُوھَرَ شَاہهِی, Ḥaḍ°rata Siýýid°nā Riýāḍa ʾAḥ°mada Sar°ḱāra Guhara Šāhí [MP3], his holy “presence, our master,” gardens of “paradise, highly prized, overseer, jewel, imperial”). Intriguingly, years before I became consciously aware of beloved Bāhū, I sought out and received personal instruction in my suburban Kansas City home (Olathe, Kansas) from an initiator. He had been authorized by Guhar Šāhí (commonly, Gohar Shahi). This amiable disciple, whose name I unfortunately cannot recall, represented the American Sufi Institute (P.O. Box 462, Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, U.S. 58301).

Guhar Šāhí taught various meditative practices, including a type of taṣavvur-i ism-i ḏāt. As I discovered much later, Šāhí, after claiming to have had an inward, mystical experience with Bāhū AS, founded a similar and, indeed, likeminded ⫯Uway°siyy branch ṭarīqaẗ of Ṭaríqat•i Qād°riýah•i Sār°vāriýah, ʾal•Qād°riyyaẗ ʾal•Mun°tahiyyaẗ [Arabic, القَادرِيَّة المُنْتَهِيَّة [MP3], the Qādirīyyaẗ of the Uttermost], and he then formulated a comprehensive set of teachings and methods called the Religion of God (Persian, دِينِ اِلَهِی [MP3], Dín-i ʾIlāhí; or Urdu, دِينَِ اِلَہِی [MP3], Dína•i ʾIlāhí). Šāhí was, I feel, my personal gateway to Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS.

Born in 1941, and now controversially deceased (2001 or 2003), Šāhí is, I believe, my fellow traveller under Bāhū’s watchful eye:

When … Guhar Šāhí was at about the age of thirty four, at one night Ḥaḍ°rata Barí ʾImāma [Urdu, حَضْرَتَ بَرِی اِمَامَ; MP3] (tomb is in Islamabad [Urdu, اِسْلَامَ آبَادَ; MP3, ʾIs°lāma ʾÂbāda, “city of Islam”]) appeared before him and said: “My son your time has come, you must go to the shrine of Sulṭān Bāhū [AS] to receive the Spiritual Knowledge.” … Guhar Šāhí then left every thing and went to shrine of Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū [AS]. Sulṭān Bāhū [AS] appeared before him and advised to read and act upon his book Nūr ʾal•Hudaỳ ([Arabic, نُور الهُدَى; MP3] Light of Guidance) and go to Saý°h°wan Šaríf [Urdū, سَیْہْوَن‬ شَرِيف; MP3], … Dadu [Urdu, دَادُو, Dādū [MP3], Pakistan.… Guhar Šāhí read the book Nūr ʾal•Hudaỳ and went … for self-purification and peace of heart ….

… [Guhar Šāhí] then left his work, family and parents and went to Šūr°ḱuṭ [Shahmukhi Punjabi, شُورْکُوٹ; MP3], where under the blessful supervision of … Sulṭān Bāhū [AS] … [Guhar Šāhí] made the book Nūr ʾal•Hudaỳ (a book written by … Bāhū [AS] …), his journey’s companion. He then went to Sayhwan Šarīf for self-mortification and peace of heart and spent a period of three years in the mountains of Sayhwan Šarīf and the [southern Indian] forest of Lālbāg [Kannada, ಲಾಲ್‌ಬಾಗ್; MP3, “Red Garden”] in self-Purification. Thereafter pursuant to a revelation … [Guhar Šāhí] went to Ǧām°šūrū where he spent six months in a hut behind the Textbook Board Building, henceforth, with Almighty ʾAllꞌah’s will, His Holiness … [Guhar Šāhí] started to shower Almighty ʾAllꞌah’s creation with his benevolence.

〜 Guhar Šāhí. 2009. Retrieved on September 8, 2013. Some words have been transliterated differently and spellings corrected.

I have never claimed to be Mih°dí. The false claimant [Younus AlGohar?, Urdu, یُونُسَ الگُوھَرَ [MP3], Ýūnusa ʾal•Gūhara, Joseph the Jewel] is misled and ill–fated. However, I have elaborated the signs of True Mih°dí. As Holy Prophet Muḩammad (peace be upon him) has a seal of prophet at his back. Likewise on the back of Mih°dí there will be a seal of Mih°dí which will be embossed by veins and whosoever will posses this sign we will accept him as … Mih°dí.

〜 Guhar Šāhí, A Great Spiritual Personality. October, 1999. Retrieved on September 8ᵗʰ, 2013. Some words have been transliterated differently and spellings corrected.

With profound humility and spirituality, Bāhū AS, in His lovingkindness or compassion (Pāli, मेत्ता [MP3], mettā; Sanskrit and Hindi, मैत्री [MP3], Marathi, मैत्री [MP3], maitrī; Nepali, मैत्री [MP3], mitratā; Gujarati, મિત્રતા [MP3], mitratā; Sinhalese, මිත්රත්වය [MP3], mitratvaya; Thai, มิตรภาพ [MP3], mitrp̣hāph; Telugu, మైత్రీ [MP3], maitrī; or Khmer, មេត្តា [MP3], mettea), remains, until the end that has no end, the collective center of our obeisance. Although I only recognized the eminent Bāhū’s AS personal agency back in 2011, he may have been with me, guiding me, during my entire life. For some inexplicable reason of the heart, I was drawn, in tremendous love, to beloved Bāhū AS while immersed in studying the exalted tradition of Sufism. He was truly one of the most exceptional Beings to inhabit the Earth over the last several centuries.

Mā šāˁa ʾAllꞌah! or Mashallah! (Arabic, مَا شَاءَ الله! [MP3], “ʾAllꞌah has willed it!”) Later, on September 8ᵗʰ, 2013, during a reflection, I realized that Bāhū AS reached out, though Guhar Šāhí, and connected more deeply with me. Šāhí was, at the time, still, unarguably, in this world:

Bay°ʿaẗ (originally Arabic, بَيْعَة [MP3]), baý°ʿat (Persian, بَیْعَت [MP3]), baý°ʿata (Urdu, بَیْعَتَ [MP3]), or baiata (Hindi, बैअत [MP3]) is a sale, transaction, deal, or bargain with mabīʿāt (Arabic, مَبِيعَات [MP3]) as the plural form. Similarly, the “seller” or “salesman” would be ʾal•bā⫯yiʿ (Arabic, البائِع‎ [MP3]) or ʾal•bāʿaẗ (Arabic, البَاعَة‎ [MP3]) when pluralized. The “saleswoman” is ʾal•bā⫯yiʿaẗ (Arabic, البائِعَة [MP3]) with a plural of ʾal•bā⫯yiʿāt (Arabic, البائِعَات [MP3]). Bayʿaẗ, an ordinary Arabic word, carries mundane connotations of mere merchandizing. In Taṣawwuf or Sufism, however, bay°ʿaẗ or baý°ʿat has been brilliantly reimagined. It heralds the dawn of a blissful journey toward reunion with the divine Presence.

In Taṣawwuf, bay°ʿaẗ is a spiritual transaction. In the sense of chivalry, bay°ʿaẗ refers to a physical or metaphorical handshake or, more precisely, a handclasp. One pledges one’s allegiance, or homage, to a guide or elder. Thus, joining a ṭarīqaẗ is frequently described as giving bay°ʿaẗ. One may, in prayerful communion, offer bay°ʿaẗ to Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS. Having completed this ritual, one is now a dervish or a mendicant and a nascent Bāhuwiyy (Arabic, بَاهُوِيّ) [MP3], a disciple of BāhūAS). The dual form is Bāhuwayni (بَاهُوَينِ [MP3]), while the plural can be either Bāhuwiyyūna (بَاهُِيُّونَ [MP3]) or Bāhuwiyyīna (بَاهُِيِّينَ [MP3]).

Focus, continually, upon visualizing or conceptualizing the performance of devotionally writing the blessed name of ʾAllꞌah (اللّه SWT), in Arabic, upon your own heart (Arabic, تَصَوَّرَ الاِسْم الذَات [MP3], taṣawwara ʾal•ʾis°m ʾal•ḏāt; or Perso–Arabic, تَصَوَّرِ اِسْمِ ذَات [MP3], taṣavvar•i ʾis°m•i ḏāt, “imagining the name” of ʾAllꞌah SWT “engraved” upon “your own” heart). This practice was formulated by the blessed Apostle Bāhū AS. In some Ṣūfiyy paths or orders (Arabic, طُرُق الصُوفِيَّة [MP3], ṭuruq ʾal•Ṣūfiyyaẗ), the heart (Arabic القَلْب, ʾal•qal°b [MP3]) is a subtlety (Arabic, لُطْف [MP3], luṭ°f) and one of the six subtleties (Arabic اللَطَائِف السِتَّة [MP3], ʾal•laṭā⫯yif ʾal•sittaẗ). Remarkably, but perhaps explained by the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy confabulation, the notion of ʾal•laṭā⫯yif ʾal•sittaẗ bears a striking resemblance to the concept of chakras (Sanskrit, चक्र [MP3], cakra, wheel; or चक्राणि, [MP3], cakrāṇi, wheels) in other South Asian religious communities.

Ḏik°r, for those individuals unfamiliar with the practice, is similar in convention to repeating a mantra in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and my dearly beloved Sikhism. Here are some renderings of the names of those faiths:

Oṃ or Auṃ, as chanted in this MP3 audio file, has no particular or known definition. However, the syllable has sometimes been regarded as the primordial sound of existence, as the original vibration which set the universe in motion, or, in comparison to conventional doctrines in numerous branches of Christianity, as a poignant expression of the creative Word (Ancient Greek, Λόγος [MP3], Lógos) of God. Commonly referred to as the praṇava mantra (Sanskrit, प्रणव मन्त्र [MP3], “powerful mantra”), Oṃ or Auṃ remains a sacred sound in a variety of respectable South Asian spiritual and faith traditions. Oṃ (Sanskrit, ओं [MP3]) and the common Buddhist spelling Auṃ (Sanskrit, औं [MP3]) are symbolized by the Sanskrit glyph ॐ (MP3), Oṃ, and the Bengali glyph, ওঁ (MP3), Ōm̐.

Quite similarly, the pronunciation of YHWH or YHVH (Hebrew, יהוה‎) is frequently approximated as Yahweh or Yahveh (Hebrew, יָהְוֶה [MP3], Yāhəwẹh). These letters, spelled in any fashion, are considered so profoundly sacred by some religious Jews that giving them voice is prohibited. YHWH, known as the Tetragrámmaton (Ancient Greek, Τετραγράμματον [MP3], literally, “four letters”), may offer a useful analogue to Oṃ or Auṃ. Based upon the reflections of the Franciscan Roman Catholic priest, Father Richard Rohr (born in 1943), YHWH literally cannot be voiced. The word, to him, is not a word. Instead, the Yahweh Prayer (MP3), as Rohr calls it, represents the sound of a full breath (yah … weh):

I cannot emphasize enough the momentous importance of the Jewish revelation of the name of God. It puts the entire nature of our spirituality in correct context and, if it had been followed, could have freed us from much idolatry and arrogance. As we now spell and pronounce it, the word is Yahweh.… It [YHVH] was considered a literally unspeakable word for Jews, and any attempt to know what we were talking about was “in vain,” as the commandment said (Exodus 20:7). Instead, they used Elohim [Hebrew, אֱלֹהִים; MP3, ʾĔlōhiym, “Almighty”] or Adonai [Hebrew, אֲדֹנָי; MP3, ʾĂḏōnāy, “Lord”] in speaking or writing. From God’s side the divine identity was kept mysterious and unavailable to the mind; when Moses asked for the divinity’s name, he got only the phrase that translates something to this effect: “I AM WHO AM.… This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations” (Exodus 3:14–15).

This unspeakability has long been recognized, but we now know it goes even deeper: formally the word was not spoken at all, but breathed! Many are convinced that its correct pronunciation is an attempt to replicate and imitate the very sound of inhalation and exhalation. The one thing we do every moment of our lives is therefore to speak the name of God. This makes it our first and our last word as we enter and leave the world.

〜 Richard Rohr. The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See. New York: A Crossroad Book imprint of The Crossroad Publishing Company. 2009. Pages 25–26.

Sikhism was, of course, discussed earlier in this obsequious monograph. Returning to the subject, among the more common Sikh mantras is the mool mantra (Guramukhi Punjabi, ਮੂਲ ਮੰਤਰ [MP3], mūla matara, “root mantra”): (Guramukhi Punjabi, ਇੱਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ [MP3 file contains two renditions of the mantra], Ika Ōꞌakāra Sati Nāmu karatā purakhu nirabhaꞌu niravairu akāla mūrati ajūnī saibha Gura prasādi.). My own interpretive rendering of the mantra is as follows: “One Oṃ–Maker! Through the True, the Ideal, Name of the Personal Creator, may fear and hatred be wiped away forevermore! The manifestation of the Preexistent One is eternally self–subsisting! The grace of Guru, the Enlightener, protects us!”

In the Bahá’í Faith, which was also previously mentioned in the monograph, one of many commonly recited mantras is ʾAllꞌahu ⫯Ab°hāỳ (Arabic, اللهُ أَبْهَى [MP3]). This form of the Greatest Name (Arabic, اِسْم الأَعْظَم [MP3], ʾIs°m ʾal•⫯Aʿ°ẓam) can be translated as either ʾAllꞌah SWT is the Most Glorious or ʾAllꞌah SWT is the All–Glorious. In the daily obligatory ḏik°r of the Bahá’í Faith, ʾAllꞌahu ⫯Ab°hāỳ is repeated ninety–five times. To do the counting, some Bahá’ís (Arabic, بَهَائِيِّينَ [MP3], Bahā⫯yiyyīna, or بَهَائِيُّونَ [MP3], Bahā⫯yiyyūna; Persian, بَهَائِیَان [MP3], Bahā⫯ýiýān; Urdu, بَہَائِیَتَ [MP3], Bahā⫯ýiýāta; Guramukhi Punjabi, ਬਹਾਇਆ [MP3], Bahāꞌiꞌā; Shahmukhi Punjabi, بَہَائِیَا [MP3], Bahā⫯ýiýā; or Hindi, बहाईयों [MP3], Bahāīyoṃ) use specially designed prayer beads, others juxtapose the fingers of both hands, and still others rely upon additional methods.

Islamophobia (Arabic, خَوْف مِن إِسْلَام [MP3], ẖaw°f min ʾal•⫰Is°lām; Hebrew, אִסְלָאמוֹפוֹבְּיָה [MP3], ʾIsəlāʾmōp̄ōbəyāh; Persian, گَرَایِشِ اِسْلَامِ هَرَاسِی [MP3], garāýiš•i ʾIs°lām•i harāsí; Urdu, اِسْلَامُفُوبِیَا [MP3], ʾIs°lāmufūbiýā; Guramukhi Punjabi, ਇਸਲਾਮਫੋਬਿਆ [MP3], Isalāmaphōbiꞌā; or Shahmukhi Punjabi, سَلَامَفُوبِیَا [MP3], ʾIsalāmafūbiýā), which is rampant on the Right, is obviously forbidden for members of this Islamic ṭarīqaẗ. Unfortunately, I have also occasionally witnessed Islamophobia on the Left (or faux left). Certainly, Leftists, including our members, have no business imitating right–wing bigots and being Islamophobes. Personally speaking, as an sociologist with a specialization in religious studies, Sufism in particular, I have constantly found myself fighting Islamophobia. Muḥammad SAAW, to be explicit, did not consummate the relationship with His child bride, Aisha (Arabic, عَائِشَة [MP3], ʿA⫯yišaẗ, “living one”) SAA until she had passed the time of puberty. Bear in mind, however, that the Prophet’s matrimonial practices were virtually universal in premodernity, as with the early U.S. settlers and as reported in the Old Testament. At a four–year college I once worked, in Southern Appalachia, one of the female members of the cleaning staff was married, she told me, at the age of twelve. Furthermore, slavery and marriage practices cannot be, legitimately, compared. Slavery, as a form of oppression, I, as a moral realist, would assert is bad under all circumstances. However, marriage practices, even today, vary widely across the world (even in my own country, the U.S.). As I often say, the past cannot be judged by the standards of the present. The social more, or significant norm, of marrying at older ages is quite recent. Over the long sweep of history, people, particularly females, got married at young ages. I am not arguing against current social mores regarding marriage, only pointing out that they are, in fact, new. Instead of the focus being on the Prophet Muḥammad SAAW, it should instead be on how the practices of marrying at older ages in some, though not all, contemporary societies came to be adopted. The fundamental reasons for the ever–increasing delays in marriage are industrialization, which led to increased urbanization—as young people left farming communities to work in the factories—resulting in the rise of the nuclear, or conjugal, family. More recently, additional delays can be attributed to the rising numbers of women in the workplace.

At only 48–years old, Rosa became a secular martyr, after being assassinated by rifle, in Berlin, Germany, on January 15ᵗʰ, 1919. That very same year, my Jewish father was born—eight months nine days later—on September 24ᵗʰ, 1919, in Brooklyn, New York. In her magnificent spirit, work heartily, and with revolutionary fervor, for democratic libertarian communism. Defend the masses, especially the victims of neofascism, in the Autonomist Antifa Movement (MP3). Bāhū AS Himself, while living centuries before the inception of Marxism, was personally committed to ending sectarian divisions in Islam. Upon rejecting disunity or dualism for unity or nonduality, the dialectical contradictions in His life were absented. He was emancipated through copresence or solidarity.

Conservative religious theology and practice, frequently viewed through the patronizing lens of moral exclusivity by religionists on the right, may receive the majority of the public’s attention. By the same token, historically, many of the greatest saints, heroes, and heroines—those who are presently championed by some of these same conservative religionists—were themselves anything but conservatives. They broke with traditional social norms and, at the same time, openly challenged dominant religious authorities. A similar narrative holds true today. Sadly, “radical” has become merely an over–used smear word. It is much too commonplace. Whatever the language, one should be proudly, and globally, a extremist:

Morality, as emancipatory praxis, is spiritually transformative agency. In a theology of liberation, the Apostles became revolutionaries and Leftist extremists. They were not reactionaries. However, some social conservatives have have duped the U.S. public. Presumably to win elections, they equate morality with traditionalism, while the opposite is true. Was Jesus (Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ [MP3], Yēšūʿạ; or Arabic, يَسُوعَ [MP3], Yasūʿa) AS in challenging polytheism, a conservative? Muḥammad’s SAAW Own followers were clearly not pacifists in the face of injustice. They engaged, instead, in a revolutionary defense, or jihad (Arabic, جِهَاد [MP3], ǧihād, “striving or struggle”), for their community. When Moses (Hebrew, מֹשֶׁה [MP3], Mōšẹh; Arabic, مُوسَى [MP3], Mūsaỳ) AS and His disciples were persecuted in the land of Egypt, they placed their trust in ʾAllꞌah SWT and traversed the wildernesss. Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS, for His part, challenged, and then rejected, both major branches of Islam.

Furthermore, the New Testament taught communism:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:32-35. New International Version.

The official, though neither obligatory nor universal, religion of the Collective is Taṣawwuf ʾal•Qād°riyyaẗ ʾal•Sār°wāriyyaẗ (Perso–Arabic, تَصَوُّف القَادْرِيَّة السَارْوَارِيَّة [MP3], “Sufism of the Competence of Mastery”), Taṣavvuf•i Qād°riýah•i Sār°vāriýah (Persian, تَصَوُّفِ قَادْرِیِ سَارْوَارِیه [MP3], “Sufism of the Competence of Mastery”), or Taṣawwufa•i Qād°riýýah•i Sārawāriýýah (Urdu, تَصَوُّفَِ قَادْرِیَّهِ سَارَوَارِیّه [MP3]) of Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS. Since this form of Taṣawwuf guides the philosophy and activity of our ṭarīqaẗ, each of the honored members is expected to earnestly follow the guidance of Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ, represented by the píra ū mur°šida, as a branch of Taṣawwuf ʾal•Qād°riyyaẗ ʾal•Sār°wāriyyaẗ. Writing more broadly, however, the predominant varieties of religious expression within The Multiversal Communist Collective are the highly diverse traditions of Ṣūfiyy Islam (Arabic, إِسْلَام الصُوفِيَّة [MP3], ⫰Is°lām ʾal•Ṣūfiyyaẗ). Citizens of the Collective are, taken as a whole, associated with a considerable number of them. Our sisters and brothers may, in peace, join as many of them as they choose.

This fanciful collective and its mythical ṭarīqaẗ lovingly commemorate the glorious Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement (Arabic, حَرَكَة البْهَاكْتِيَّة ـ الصُوفِيَّة [MP3], ḥarakaẗ ʾal•B°hāk°tiyyaẗ–ʾal•Ṣūfiyyaẗ), circa 800–1700 A.D. Furthermore, my personal prototype, or ideal type, for devotion is that same Bhakti or Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement. The adorational center, or flowering, of the Golden Age of Islam might be found in this heart–focused movement. It arose chiefly from within the subaltern (MP3), or marginalized, peasant populations of diverse faiths in South Asia (Urdu, جَنُوبِی ایْشِیَاMP3], Ǧanūbí ʾAý°šiýā), including the Indus Valley (Urdu, وَادْیِ سنْدْھَ [MP3], Wād°ý•i Sin°d°ha). It was a wonderful spiritual movement. Sadly, it can never be fully recouped in the wake of the horrendous, reprehensible, and all–pervasive interfaith violence from South Asia’s anticolonial warfare during the mid–20ᵗʰ century.

To put it another way, Sufism developed principally in South Asia. The extended association between devotional Hindus (Sanskrit, हिंदुओं [MP3], Hiṃduoṃ, “rivers” or “oceans”) and Muslims (Arabic, مُسْلِمُونَ [MP3], Mus°limūna, “peacefully surrendering ones”) was largely responsible for this wonderfully transcendent phenomenon. Although aspects of the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement have been carried forward in some contemporary spiritual organizations, the final and unfortunate breakup of India into two, and then three, countries in the 20ᵗʰ century signaled the end of the movement’s prominence as a compelling social force in South Asia. Yet, the regional and Western influence of the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement’s has endured, albeit with a considerably diminished influence, until the present time. I have produced two relevant podcasts (MP3) for The Dr. Mark Foster Show.

Listen to this delightful Hindu (Sanskrit, हिंदू [MP3], Hiṃdū, “river” or “ocean”) bhakti song (MP3). The ecstasy of infatuation, rather than the tragedy of legalism, galvanized this enlightened era of interfaith amity. Indeed, given the syncretism of the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement, terms from Urdu, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Hindi, and so forth are scattered throughout the manuscript. The parent order of Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ, the Ṭaríqat•i Qād°riýah•i Sār°vāriýah, was, moreover, integral to both the potency and the continuity of that movement. Here is some background information pertaining to the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement’s illustrious history, including the contributions which were made by the Muḥammad’s extraordinary Lesser Prophet, the Luminous Moon of the Punjab Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS:

The Bhakti–Sufi movement was … [a] major pan–Indian articulation … of subaltern dissent.

The spokesmen/women of the movement mostly came from the subaltern or marginalised sections of society and were workers, women or Muslims …. Sultan Bahu … and other Sufi poets were Muslims by birth.

An important landmark in the cultural history of medieval India [Hindi, इंडिया; MP3, Iṃḍiyā, “river” or “ocean”] was the silent revolution in society brought about by a galaxy of socio-religious reformers, a revolution known as the Bhakti Movement. This movement was responsible for many rites and rituals associated with the worship of God by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs [Guramukhi Punjabi, ਸਿੱਖਾਂ; MP3, Sikhāṁ] of [the] Indian subcontinent. For example, Kirtan [Sanskrit, कीर्तन; MP3, kīrtana, “telling”] at a Hindu Temple, Qawaali [Urdu, قَوُّالِی; MP3, qawwālí, “utterance”] at a Dargah [Persian, دَرْگَه; MP3, dar°gah, “threshold” or, by implication, shrine] (by Muslims), and singing of Gurbani [Guramukhi Punjabi, ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ; MP3, gurabāṇī, “wise speech”] at a Gurdwara [Guramukhi Punjabi, ਗੁਰਦੁਆਰਾ; MP3, guraduꞌārā, “door to the guru”], are all derived from the Bhakti movement of medieval India (800–1700) ….

Sufism represents the inward or esoteric side of Islam or the mystical dimension of Muslim [Arabic, مُسْلِم, Mus°lim, “peacefully surrendering one”] religion. However, the Sufi saints transcending all religious and communal distinctions, worked for promoting the interest of humanity at large. The Sufis [Arabic, صُوفِيُّونَ; MP3, Ṣūfiyyūna] were a class of philosophers remarkable for their religious catholicity …. It [Sufism] rebelled against all forms of religious formalism, orthodoxy, falsehood and hypocrisy and endeavoured to create a new world order in which spiritual bliss was the only and the ultimate goal ….

… Sultan Bahu (ca 1628–1691) was a Muslim Sufi and saint who founded the Sarwari Qadiri Sufi order. Sultan Bahu was born in Anga, Soon Valley, in the Punjab Province of Pakistan. Like many other Sufi saints of South Asia Sultan Bahu was a prolific writer. More than forty books on Sufism are attributed to him, mostly in Persian.

India saw a remarkable fusion of Islamic [Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّة; MP3, ⫰Is°lāmiyyaẗ] and indigenous Hindu traditions, giving rise to a rich composite culture.… One of the best representatives of this confluence of traditions is the Bhakti-Sufi movement, a form of personal piety that challenged the hegemony of the religious orthodoxy and crusaded against caste and community divisions and meaningless ritualism.

A wealth of literature abounds with the teachings and writings of these Hindu and Sufi mystics ….

There have been further expressions of the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement, and its subsequent offshoots, to which I was drawn at various points of my life. For instance, at 12 years old (1968), I nearly joined Sikhism, a progeny of that movement, founded by the magnificent saint, Guru Nanak Dev (Guramukhi Punjabi, ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ [MP3], Gurū Nānaka Dēva; Shahmukhi Punjabi, گُرُو نَانَک دَیوَ [MP3], Gurū Nānaḱa Dēva; or Hindi, गुरु नानक देव [MP3], Guru Nānaka Deva) AS 1469–1539. Sikhism’s strong monotheism coupled with its doctrine of reincarnation were particularly attractive to me. However, through snail mail correspondence, that same year, with the Sikh Temple in Stockton, California, I was, sadly at the time, convincingly dissuaded by the five Ks (Guramukhi Punjabi, ਪੰਜ ਕਕਾਰ [MP3], paja kakāra), which has been illustrated in the image below, for baptised Sikhs.

Reluctantly, I acknowledged that Sikhism, however much I loved it, was rooted in an earlier time and a far different locale. The religion’s mode of dress and hair style was never intended for the student locker room of a 1960s American gymnasium. Attiring myself with such unconventional accoutrements, displayed in the two pictures below left, made no more sense than wearing the medieval European apparel of a traditional Hasidic Jew (Hebrew/ʿIḇəriyṯ, יְהוּדִי הַחָסִיד [MP3], Yəhūḏiy hạ•Ḥāsiyḏ), as portrayed below right. Being thus adorned, with the trappings of one faith or the other, would have placed a target on my back. I cannot imagine the reception by my seventh–grade classmates, especially from the school’s many bullies. Wearing such garments would simply have multipled, to unimaginable levels, the discrimination I was already receiving as an Autistic boy.

Eventually, a photograph featuring Twitchell alongside Singh torpedoed the scam. A considerable number of Eckists, as they are called, dolefully abandoned the organization. Heartbroken, many felt, legitimately it seems to me, as though Twitchell had duped, even swindled, them. In my own case, I recall that only a minor postal miscommunication between me, at around thirteen-years old, and the movement’s Las Vegas headquarters (subsequently in Menlo Park, California, and presently in Chanhassen, Minnesota) prevented me from attaining membership in the organization. Their returned letter could have dampened my enthusiasm, but I had already lost interest. Even so, my attraction to Surat Shabd Yoga resumed in earnest, and even stronger than before, several years later.

In the photograph below, Kirpal Singh is in the middle, and Paul Twitchell is on the far right:

Click on the Picture for the Black–and–White Image

I was, therefore, ultimately initiated, following my ethnographic or participant–observational interests as a sociologist, into three other factions of the contemplative Surat Shabd Yoga. However, I stopped practicing the meditation after I developed something like tinnitus (Arabic طَنِينُ الأُذُن [MP3], ṭanīnu ʾal•⫯uḏun), which could have some relation to my Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (Arabic اِضْطِرَاب الوَسْوَاس القَهْرِيّ [MP3], ʾiḍ°ṭirāb ʾal•was°wās ʾal•qah°riyy)—a secondary comorbidity to my Autism Spectrum Disorder (Arabic اِضْطِرَاب الطَيْف التَوَحُّد [MP3], ʾiḍ°ṭirāb ʾal•ṭay°f ʾal•tawaḥḥud)—that might, and bear in mind that I am just speculating here, be results of the mantric aspect of the practice. In any event, I associated with the following groups, at various times, over a considerable number of years:

Spiritual Freedom Satsang (with their Facebook page), founded by Sri Michael Turner (born in 1958), is a small organization which belongs to the Radhasoami Satsang Beas tradition. Specifically, Turner, who personally initiated me over the phone, hails from the offshoot of Eckankar, ATOM: Ancient Teachings of the Masters. That group, now essentially a publishing house, was founded by the late Darwin Gross (1928–2008), a former master in Eckankar who was controversially, and indeed somewhat ambiguously, forced out of the organization.

Due to the primarily inward transmissions of successorship, the neo–Sikh Surat Shabd Yoga movement has repeatedly divided. Self–delusion, in personal mysticism, is all too easy. It is extraordinary difficult, perhaps virtually impossible, to clearly distinguish between inspiration and guidance from ʾAllꞌah SWT, His Prophets, Guardian Angels, and departed souls, on the one hand, and wishful thinking and a thoroughgoing imagination, on the other. Surat Shabd Yoga began, however, with Agrah (Hindi, आग्रह [MP3], Āgraha), India’s Shri Shiv Dayal Singh Sahab (Hindi, श्री शिव दयाल सिंह साहब [MP3], Śrī Śiva Dayāla Siṃha Sāhaba), 1818–1878. He was, by religion, a Sikh and, by occupation, a banker. Among his many devotees, he is referred to using the reverential title of Soamiji Maharaj (Hindi, स्वामी जी महाराज [MP3], Svāmī Jī Mahārāja, “respectful and sovereign master”).

Surat Shabd Yoga consists of two distinct spiritual methodologies. First, the ears are plugged, and the sound current, supposedly intensifying in frequency as one progresses, is listened to from the right side. Second, the eyes are entirely shut, while reciting the prescribed regimen of mantras, which will permit the meditator to allegedly witness visions of progressively higher celestial planes and the beings residing within them (including, ultimately, one’s spiritual master). Before providing the paṅca namaḥ, here are three preliminary points:

Out of a respect for current meditators, and a sincere desire not to unduly offend them, I shall note that, in some groups of the Radhasoami Satsang Beas tradition, the five names are provided confidentially. An explicit request is made through the initiator, speaking on behalf of the master, not to divulge them to others. However, that practice of surreptitiousness began with Kirpal Singh. It has continued with some of his successors, not all. By no means has the requirement of secrecy ever been a universal stipulation.

The precise Sanskrit and Punjabi (both Guramukhi and Shahmukhi) spellings of the paṅca namaḥ provided here, and the translations of those words, are based upon my own original research. Therefore, and please take my word for it, there will inevitably be errors in these renderings.

With those qualifications now out of the way, the following simran constitutes the most widely taught five–part mantra as presented verbally by the initiator and then silently or inwardly repeated by disciples within the Radha Soami Satsang Beas tradition:

He [a yogī] preached yoga [Sanskrit, योग, MP3, yoga, “union or yoking”] practice but with a few words of praises to God namely: Jot Niranjan, Onkar, Rarankar, Sohang, Satnam. He believed that that the utterance of these words in the initial stage of smadhi [Sanskrit, समाधि, MP3, samādhi, “contemplation”] will help the yogi [Hindi, योगी, MP3, yogī, “practitioner of union”] to attain higher concentration and there after the yogi has to follow his mind where ever it treads. He met a Sikh, Shiv Dyal of Agra and converted him to yogimat [Hindi, योगी मत, MP3, yogī mata, “doctrine of practitioner of union”]. Swami Shiv Dyal preached this concept on a large and organised scale.

Furthermore, inspired by my personally transformative experiences with Bāhū AS, I have been engaged in further participant–observational research or ethnographic studies, without becoming a member, of no less than twelve Ṣūfiyy, Ṣūfiyy–influenced, or Muslim–inspired organizations within Islamdom (Arabic, عَالَم الإِسْلَامِيّ [MP3], ʾālam ʾal• ⫰Is°lāmiyy, “the Islamic world”), including:

Naqshbandiyya Nazimiyya Sufi Order of America (my Urduization, نَقْشْبَنْدِیَّہ نَاظمِیَّہ صُوفِی طَرِیقَتَِ امْرِیکَہ [MP3], Naq°šban°diýýah Nāẓimiýýah Ṣūfí Ṭaríqata•i ʾAm°ríḱā). I developed an association on December 14ᵗʰ, 2009, and, again, on April 22ʳᵈ, 2010 (through two different websites belonging to the same order).

Sahaj Marg (Sanskrit, सहज मार्ग [MP3], Sahaja Mārga, “Natural Path”) is a Hinduized Naq°š°ban°dī Ṣūfiyy order. I had a meditative session with one of the organization’s preceptor’s shortly after the turn of the 21ˢᵗ century. The founder was Ram Chandra (Sanskrit, रामचन्द् [MP3], Rāmacand, “dark moon”) also known as Lālajī Mahārāja (Sanskrit, लालजी महाराज [MP3], “honored playful one”), 1873–1931. He was allegedly the first non-Muslim šayẖ of the Naq°š°ban°dī Ṣūfiyy order. He was given bay°ʿaẗ by a Muslim. Lālajī’s legacy has been claimed by both Hindus and Muslims. See also Shri Ram Chandra Mission.

I joined with Roohaani (Urdu, رُوحَانِی [MP3], Rūḥāní, “spiritual”), founded by Jahan Qadri (Urdu, جَهَانَ قَادْرِی [MP3], Ǧahāna Qad°rí), on August 14ᵗʰ, 2010. The order, which is in the tradition of Ḥaḍ°rat Sul°ṭān Bāhū AS, may have folded or, at least, discontinued its former website.

Significantly, four of the organizations mentioned above—Naqshbandi Order of Sheikh Taoshobuddha, Naqshbandiyya Nazimiyya Sufi Order of America, Naqshbandi Mujaddadi Sardari Tariqah, and The Golden Sufi Center—are associated with Naq°š°ban°diyyaẗ (Arabic, نَقْشْبَنْدِيَّة [MP3]), Naq°š°ban°dí (Persian, نَقْشْبَنْدِی [MP3]), Naq°š°ban°diýýah (Urdu, نَقْشْبَنْدِیَّہ [MP3]), or Nàkèshénbāndí (Mandarin Chinese, 納克什班迪 [MP3]). The first portion of the word, naq°š (Persian, نَقْش [MP3]), translates as inscription. The second segment of the word, ban°d (Persian, بَنْد [MP3]), derives from the same Indo–European root as bond, bind, or binding to ʾAllꞌah SWT. An integral part of the Bhakti–Ṣūfiyy movement, Naq°š°ban°diyyaẗ was once the largest Ṣūfiyy order in medieval, or premodern, India.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is widely, but not exclusively, associated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). In July, 1966, this devotional organization was founded, in the City of New York, by Abhay Charanaravinda “A. C.” Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Bengali, অভয়চরণারবিন্দ ভক্তিবেদান্ত স্বামীপ্রভুপাদ [MP3], Abhaẏacaraṇārabinda Bhaktibēdānta Sbāmīprabhupāda; or Sanskrit, अभय चरणारविन्द भक्तिवेदान्त स्वामी प्रभुपाद [MP3], Abhaya Caraṇāravinda Bhaktivedānta Svāmī Prabhupāda). A native of Kolkata (Bengali, কলকাতা [MP3], Kalakātā; or Hindi, कोलकाता [MP3], Kolakātā), previously Romanized as Calcutta, India, he was born in 1896 and died in 1977.

The quotation directly below is a complete translation of the only known, or extant, text by Caitanya. I have, using available resources, tentatively translated various Sanskrit terms into English. All transliterations from the original Sanskrit were humbly modified by me using the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST), which was briefly mentioned at the beginning of the monograph. Now, here is the wonderful text:

Glory to the Śrī–Kṛṣṇā–saṅkīrtana [Sanskrit, श्री–कृष्ण–संकीर्तन; MP3, “Radiant Krishna chanting”], which cleanses the heart of all the dust accumulated for years and extinguishes the fire of conditional life, of repeated birth and death. This saṅkīrtana [Sanskrit, संकीर्तन, “chanting”] movement is the prime benediction for humanity at large because it spreads the rays of the benediction moon. It is the life of all transcendental knowledge. It increases the ocean of transcendental bliss, and it enables us to fully taste the nectar for which we are always anxious.

O my Lord, Thy holy name alone can render all benediction to living beings, and thus Thou has hundreds and millions of names, like Kṛṣṇā and Goviṃdā [Sanskrit, गोविंदा; MP3, “protector of cows”]. In these transcendental names Thou hast invested all Thine transcendental energies. There are not even hard and fast rules for chanting these names. O my Lord, out of kindness Thou does enable us to easily approach The by Thine holy names, but I am so unfortunate that I have no attraction for them.

One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.

O Almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Thy causeless devotional service, birth after birth.

O Son of Mahārāja Naṃdā [Sanskrit, महाराज नंदा; MP3, “Great or Exalted King of Joy,” i.e., Kṛṣṇā’s custodial or “foster” father], I am They eternal servitor, yet somehow or other I have fallen into the ocean of birth and death. Please pick me up from this ocean of death and place me as one of the atoms at They lotus feet.

O my Lord, when will my eyes be decorated with tears of love flowing constantly when I chant They holy name? When will my voice choke up, and when will the hairs of my body stand on end at the recitation of They name?

O Goviṃdā! Feeling Thy separation, I am considering a moment to be like twelve or more years. Tears are flowing from my eyes like torrents of rain, and I am feeling thoroughly vacant in the world in They absence.

I know no one but Kṛṣṇā as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me brokenhearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord, unconditionally.

The transformative practice of Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective can be summarized as follows: The Preternatural Multiverse involves a supernatural commune–ism with loving Entities wrapped up inside ourselves and the innermost reality of this world. Relations with these Beings develop through our meditations and our dreams. The figurative “vehicles” of contact are, as mentioned earlier in the monograph, the phenomenological analyses (MP3) of Heartfuless Inquiry and The Echoing Practice. ʾAllꞌah’s SWT lovingkindness for His entire creation knows no end in time (Arabic, زَمَان [MP3], zamān). We can draw closer to Him, and receive great bounties and blessings, by the intercessions of His Preternatural Creatures.

As ʾAllꞌah’s AS Guardian Angels, from eternity and until eternity, These Preternatural Creatures climb, up and down, Jacob’s Ladder (Hebrew, סֻלָּם יַעֲקֹב; MP3, Sullām Yạʿăqōḇ) between this world of existence and the world to come:

Jacob [Hebrew, יַעֲקֹב; MP3, Yạʿăqōḇ, “Heel–Grabber”] left Beer–sheba [Hebrew, בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע; MP3, Bəʾēr Šəḇạʿ, “oath”] and went toward Haran [Hebrew, הָרָן; MP3, Hārān, “parched”]. He came to a certain place and stayed there for the night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place. And he dreamed that there was a ladder [Hebrew, סֻלָּם, sullām; MP3] set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God [Hebrew, אֱלֹהִ֔ים; MP3, ʾĔlōhiym, “Almighty”] were ascending and descending on it. And the LORD [Hebrew, יהוה; MP3, YHVH or YHWH, “Self–Subsistent”] stood beside him and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham [Hebrew, אַבְרָהָם; MP3, ʾẠḇərāhām, “Father of a Multitude”] your father and the God of Isaac [Hebrew, יִצְחָק; MP3, Yiṣəḥāq, “Laughing One”]; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring; and your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring. Know that I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” Then Jacob woke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place―and I did not know it!”

ʾal•Ssalāmu ʿalay°kum! (Arabic, السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُم! [MP3], “peace be upon you!”) Before beginning this very cursory exposition, I feel inspired by the Will of ʾAllꞌah AS to offer my earnest and heartfelt apologies for any possible mispronunciations, on my own part, throughout the entire monograph. My tremendous weaknesses, in this area and in many others others as well, must surely be immediately obvious to the careful reader of the monograph. Nevertheless, I will, as best I can, attempt to set them aside and proceed to the subject at hand. Substantially similar perspectives to the ones which are outlined in the following diagram have been presented more or less cogently within The Institute for Dialectical metaRealism, The Unicentric Paradigm, and Echoes of Cosmic Unity:

UNIVERSE OF TAW°ḤĪD: This Collective Center of Taw°ḥīd–Täwahədo–Tawəhidə–Yiḥūḏ—the innermost universe of universes for all the beings and things in existence—is inhabited by the Cosmic Unity of ʾAllꞌah–ʾÄlahə–ʾAlāhā–ʾĔlōhiym. Additionally, those quadruplicate sets of words are pairs of Semitic cognates. Taw°ḥīd (Arabic, تَوْحِيد [MP3]), Täwahədo (Geʾez/Gəʾəzə, ተዋህዶ [MP3]), Tawəhidə (Amharic, ታውሂድ [MP3]), and Yiḥūḏ (Hebrew, יִחוּד [MP3]) refer to “Unification.” On the other hand, ʾAllꞌah SWT, ʾÄlahə (Amharic, አላህ [MP3]), ʾAlāhā (Syriac/Suryāyā, (ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ [MP3]), and ʾĔlōhiym (Hebrew, אֱלֹהִ֔י [MP3]) are designations for “God.” Like rolling a ball of yarn, not peeling back the layers of an onion, these successive universes spiral out from the Collective Center.

UNIVERSE OF TAḤARRUR: The term Taḥarrur (Arabic, تَحَرُّر [MP3]) refers to “emancipation” or “liberation.” In Sanskrit and Hindi, mokṣa or moksha (मोक्ष [MP3]) brings into its orbit various forms of “emancipation.” Extending out from this hidden, unknowable universe, its exterior universes will be enumerated in the following categories.

UNIVERSE OF RUSUL: These sanctified Rusul (Arabic, رُسُل [MP3], “Apostles or Messengers”), residing in this universe, are omniscient and omnipotent BeingsAS. A Rasūl (Arabic, رَسُول [MP3]) AS on the other hand, is a single “Apostle or Messenger” (). Greater and Lesser Apostles are Emissaries AS of the UNIVERSE OF TAW°ḤĪD. Their eloquent discourses are addressed to mortal and everlasting souls. Avatārāḥ (Sanskrit, अवताराः [MP3]) or Avatāroṃ (Hindi, अवतारों [MP3]) AS are “Descending Ones or Ones Who cross down.” The singular form is the Sanskrit and Hindi Avatāra (अवतार [MP3])AS.

Universe of Maẓ°rūf ʾal•Kaw°niyy: The Rusul AS abide together, living as Many in One, within a great Maẓ°rūf ʾal•Kaw°niyy (Arabic, مَظْرُوف الكَوْنِيّ [MP3]), a Cosmic Envelope. The Cosmic Envelope of divine Unity is a celestial kūn°fid°rāliyyaẗ (Arabic, كُونْفِدرَالِيَّة [MP3]), an Indo–European loanword for a “confederation.” Also relevant is the term anekāntavāda (Sanskrit and Hindi, अनेकान्तवाद [MP3])―a concept in Jainism for many–sidednesss.

Universe of Nis°biyyaẗ: Each Apostle () has a unique relative reality. Nis°biyyaẗ (نِسْبِيَّة [MP3]] is “relativity.” Āpekṣikatva (Sanskrit and Hindi, आपेक्षिकत्व [MP3]) is also “relativity.”

Universe of Dirāyaẗ: The world of dirāyaẗ (Arabic, دِرَايَة [MP3]), “knowledge,” possessed by the bodhisattvāḥ comes, progressively, from the Rusul AS Themselves. In Sanskrit and Hindi, vidyā (विद्या [MP3]), from the same Indo–European root as “wisdom” and “wise,” is “knowledge.”

Universe of ʾÂẖiraẗ: In this universe of the great beyond, the intended result of our moral lives in the Universe of Ṭabīʿaẗ (Arabic, طَبِيعَة [MP3], “nature”) is revealed to be personal and social emancipation as completed bodhisattvāḥ. ʾÂẖiraẗ (Arabic, آخِرَة [MP3]) is the “Hereafter.” In Hebrew, Šāmạyim (שָׁמַיִם [MP3]) is “Heaven.”

Universe of Ṭabīʿaẗ

UNIVERSE OF ⫯AḤ°LĀM: The dream state and the Guardian Angels (Arabic, المَلَائِكَة الحَارِسَة [MP3], ʾal•Malā⫯yikaẗ ʾal•Ḥārisaẗ) Who inhabit that universe can be powerful agents for self-discovery. ⫯Aḥ°lām (Arabic, أَحْلَام [MP3]) are “dreams.” One Guardian Angel came to me in a dream, bumped into my bed, and said, “Uh, oh.” I thought I was dreaming. Later, I realized that I was, in fact, dreaming, but my understanding of dreams had been distorted by psychiatry. Dreams are the inner reality of this world. When I got up, my keys were missing from the push pin in my wall. At my assistant resident manager’s urging, I reluctantly filed a police report. I realized I would appear to be deranged. The officer, named “Stephen” as I recall, took photographs of my apartment’s bedroom. When I woke up the following morning, the keys were back on the wall. I obviously cancelled the police report. I was also, without making any exaggeration whatsoever, instantly, and seemingly permanently, transformed from an unempathetic Autist, who had never previously loved another human being (including my own parents)—or had even understood love beyond passively reading a dictionary definition—into an empathic, a loving, individual. Truthfully, the experience seemed, and continues to seem, miraculous. I am quite literally no longer the same person, and the process has continued to unfold.

UNIVERSE OF FAḌĀ⫯YIL: Through the Rusul AS, each of us can, while living in this universe, become a virtuous bodhisattva. Faḍā⫯yil (Arabic, فَضَائِل [MP3]) are “virtues.”

UNIVERSE OF TAWĀǦUD ʾAL–MUŠ°TARAK: Groups, layered within this universe, unite around one or more Rusul AS. Tawāǧud ʾal•Muš°tarak (Arabic, تَوَاجُد المُشْتَرَك [MP3], “joint presence” or “common presence”), is “copresence.” In Sanskrit and Hindi, ekatā (एकता [MP3]) is “unity” or “copresence.”

UNIVERSE OF WAH°M: The negation or contradiction of copresence divides people from one another. Wah°m (Arabic, وَهْم [MP3]) is delusion or imagination. In Sanskrit and Hindi, māyā (Sanskrit and Hindi, माया [MP3]) is “illusion”, “dualism,” or “demireality.”

UNIVERSE OF MĀDDIYYAT̈: Human bodies, in the physical universe, include the characteristics of animals, vegetables, and minerals. Māddiyyaẗ (Arabic, مَادِّيَّة [MP3]) is “materiality.”

UNIVERSE OF ⫰IḤ°SĀS: Each animal in this universe contains sensory, growing, and cohesive characteristics. They are the animal’s bodily functions (shared by human beings). ⫰Iḥ°sās (Arabic, إِحْسَاس [MP3]) is “sensation.” In Sanskrit, vedanā (वेदना [MP3]) is “sensation” or “feeling.”

Populism, whether on the left or the neofascist right, is extremely dangerous to the individual and society. Left–wing populism, as an opponent of critical theory, is hostile toward political correctness, African American socialist intersectionality, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa (even as tactics, not as strategies). Critical thinking and the long–term success of legitimate left revolutionary movements are threatened. Moreover, an anti–intellectual, pseudo–left populism thrives on categorical—either–or and good–bad—statements. All critical theorists should be vigilant concerning the cancerous growth of leftist populism in numerous dark recesses of the Internet and be willing to confront it forthrightly. Such a spurious leftism (Arabic, يَسَارِيَّة الزَائِفَة [MP3], yasāriyyaẗ ʾal•za⫯yifaẗ) may present the most dangerous challenge to the Left since McCarthyism (Arabic, مْكَارْثِيَّة [MP3], M°kār°ṯiyyaẗ).

Anecdotally, I and my academic colleagues are often treated like trash by left–wing populists. I searched inside myself for any culpability in the anti–intellectualism on NationStates. Then I looked around and could find no other academics. Initially, I was kicked out of a NationStates “region” after standing up to a moderator who verbally abused me. Later, in the Left–Wing Discussion Thread III, I became the target of vicious attacks for self–identifying as an academic Marxist and for discussing critical social theory. I have repeatedly declared that I elevate left refoundation (Arabic, الإِعَادَة التَأْسِيس اليَسَار [MP3], ⫰iʿādaẗ ʾal•t⫯āsīs ʾal•yasār) and left regroupment (Arabic, إِعَادَة التَجْمِيع اليَسَار [MP3], ⫰iʿādaẗ ʾal•taǧ°mīʿ ʾal•yasār) over any allegiance to my tendency. Still, I was accused of being a rigid Luxemburgist and an élitist (Arabic, نُّخْبِيّ [MP3], nnuẖ°biyy) or upholder of élitism:

Communists can never be too extreme about justice. Nothing excels it in importance. Yet, many left–wing populists, parotting a meme, disparage others as social justice warriors (SJWs). What is the point of being a Leftist if one does not fight social injustice? There are hosts of other activities in which one could become engaged. Hobbies are abundant. One can shop, text, surf the web, or chat on the phone. Battling particular injustices does not preclude one from struggling, more specifically, for revolution. One can enroll in courses, or read books, on time management. Ultimately, how much one chooses to engage daily in this or that activity is a private matter. One could even, heavens forbid, dedicate one’s life to battling oppression through pursuing an honorable life as a social justice warrior (Arabic, مُحَارِب لِأَجْل العَدَالَة الاِجْتِمَاعِيَّة [MP3], muḥārib li•⫯āǧ°l ʾal•ʿadālaẗ ʾal•ʾiǧ°timāʿiyyaẗ).

Bolsheviks (Russian, Большевики [MP3], Bolʹševiki) often view capitalism in purely economic terms. To them, the fight for social justice is simply a distraction from their economic version of revolution. In my own communist or revolutionary socialist world, we would probably not even remain in the same room, or tendency, together. I, like my fellow libertarian Marxist Roy Bhaskar, view all expressions of liberation from injustice as aspects of the fight for communism. To me, SJWs should, in copresence, be embraced, not, in demireality, be rejected. At that point, they can be encouraged to become revolutionaries. A liberation from social injustice and inequity—the radical essence of left–libertarianism (Arabic, اليَسَار مِن لِيبِرْتَارِيَّة [MP3], ʾal•yasār min lībir°tāriyyaẗ; or Hebrew, לִיבֶּרְטַרְיָנִיזְם הַשְׂמֹאלָנִי [MP3], liybẹrəṭarəyāniyzəm hạ•śəmōʾlāniy)—becomes the key to achieving communism.

Thus, I would never attack any SJWs, since I regard them, not only as allies, but as as potential candidates to become libertarian communists. Yet, even beyond the pragmatic dimension, which can only take one so far, a libertarian communist must, I also believe, become an SJW. To me, an anti–SJW libertarian communist is plainly a contradiction in terms. If the liberty in libertarianism is not universalized to the fight against all expressions of plenary injustice, one might as well, from my perspective, be a Marxist–Leninist, a syndicalist, or, for that matter, a fascist. Why squander one’s life and time when libertarian Marxism, through the philosophy of critical realism, emphasizes universal liberation from demireality or disunity? In accordance with the sovereign Will of ʾAllꞌah (Arabic, مَشِيئَة الله [MP3], Mašī⫯yaẗ ʾAllꞌah) SWT may more receptive souls be drawn to critical realism.

As a libertarian communist, I consider myself to be an SJW. Moreover, I would argue that a non–SJW libertarian communist is an oxymoron―a contradiction in terms. What libertarian communism offers to those activists—committed to serving humanity through social justice warfare—is a sound basis for praxis (practice) strongly grounded in Marxist theory. Yet, even without Marxist theory, some practitioners of social justice warfare have accomplished considerable good. As Rosa Luxemburg taught us, reform, while limited in its productivity when contrasted with revolution, can be beneficial. However, those advantages can be accelerated by synthesizing social justice warfare with Marxism. Moreover, many Autistics, myself among them, are preoccupied with justice and viscerally angered by injustice. This trait is one of the intriguing features of our atypical neurologies.

Social justice is not always compatible with egalitarianism. However, in all cases, social justice surpasses egalitarianism in importance. To consider an applicable issue of social reform, in the sense that Rosa distinguished it from revolution, African Americans continue to derive socioeconomic and other costs from the plantation system. On the other hand, European Americans have persisted in extracting socioeconomic and other benefits from that same plantation system. Is there an appropriate remedy? Yes, but I sadly doubt that such a solution will be implemented. Paying reparations to African Americans would certainly not be egalitarian. Yet, it would be just. Many white conservatives would wail. My response: Who the hell cares what they think? These assholes are the intellectual successors to the owners of plantations who began American race and racism in the first place.

Regarding feminism in particular, the claim has been made, on NationStates, that after women achieved suffrage, the feminist movement should have ceased to exist. Such comments not only disqualify that person as a Leftist. They raise the question of whether the category of human being has been used too broadly. I mean, what person in her or his right mind would oppose the success of the women’s liberation movement in guaranteeing equal pay for equal work, the protection of women against sexual harassment and assault, and their rights to join once all–male unions as wonderful and worthy achievements? Whether these sorry chauvinists are befitting candidates for a psychiatrist’s couch, I cannot say. I am a sociologist, not a psychotherapist. Nevertheless, they are certainly deserving of pity for not recognizing the condescending and disparaging nature of their criticisms.

Relative to revolutionary emancipation, dear Rosa Luxemburg recognized the limitation of reforms, or wars for social justice in the contemporary vernacular, yet she welcomed them. Idealism, to Rosa, must never be elevated above the immediate welfare of the worker. A pragmatism of this sort should be embraced by all communists. Of course, it is not. Far too many communists, mostly Marxist–Leninists in my experience, get so caught up in their own thoughtless mind games, that they fail to see both the forest of revolution and, however imperfect, the trees of immediate improvements. Libertarian communists cannot make that error. Revolution comes first. However, as the saying goes, one can walk and chew gum at the same time. Through compassion, we should feel inclined to, not by obligation but by the dint of solidarity, to reach out and to assist others however we are able.

Progressives want to reform societies, not to supplant them with entirely different systems. Leftists, however, would rather see present-day societies completely replaced by communism or revolutionary socialism. On the other hand, Rosa was not opposed to reform. As a loving, compassionate, and true humanitarian, she favored anything which would ameliorate the lives of the proletariat. That notwithstanding, she recognized that reforms are shot-term fixes. The real solutions will only come through revolution. In other words, reforming the world cannot become a substitute for creating an entirely new one. Communists cannot allow themselves to be seduced by politicians into abandoning the genuine revolutionary struggle for platforms of empty promises. Fighting for the total eradication of the capitalist world–system must be a libertarian communist’s uncompromising objective.

The difficult question must be asked: Who precisely is going to legislate reforms? The answer: It is the elected or, in some societies, the appointed legislators. They are, if we are to be brutally honest with outselves, among the very people who benefit from the status quo. An incentive for bringing about real change is lacking. Most governments are bought and paid for by corporations. Therefore, no matter how much progressives may pressure their governments to enact reforms, any supposed improvements in the capitalist world–system will never be sufficient to alleviate human suffering, to bring about individual emancipation, or to transform the entire planet. Only a real revolution will be sufficient. The object of that revolution must be nothing less than democratic libertarian communism, while the exemplar of its polity and economy should be no one less than Rosa Luxemburg.

In Rosa’s day, a social democracy, a term she employed, was democratic communism. Still, despite Rosa’s best efforts to preserve social democracy for her democratic libertarian communism, nomenclatures continually change. Early in the 20ᵗʰ century, the revised social democracy, or democratic socialism, divided. Some remained democratic socialists. On both sides of the pond, the democratic socialists adopted counterrevolutionary Eduard Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism. A few called themselves Marxists, but some abandoned the label. That fision among democratic socialists endures till now. Through another split, social democracy became reformist capitalism. U.S. social democrats supported Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal or, subsequently, Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution. Prior to disgraced UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Labour Party widely backed social democracy.

Progressive activists may be sorely misguided. Nevertheless, their diligence should never be disparaged. Such advocates of progressivism (Arabic, تَقَدُّمِيَّة [MP3], taqaddumiyyaẗ; Hebrew, קִידְּמָה [MP3], qiydəmāh; Persian, تْرَقِی خْوَاهِی [MP3], t°raqí ẖ°vāhí; or Urdu, تْرَقِی پَسَنْدِی [MP3], t°raqí pasan°dí), with their honestly nascent class consciousness, are quite often excellent candidates to become revolutionaries. The theoretical praxis of constructing thought bridges from progressivism to libertarian Marxist communism can frequently be a notably effective communist entry tactic. Today, a mere one–dimensional communism has become disengaged in the struggle for universal emancipation from human oppression. A counterfeit communism, indeed, betrays the Left. Genuine projects of liberation are ontologically incompatable with populist smear campaigns against feminists and SJWs.

One example of institutionalized social justice warfare, in the U.S., is Affirmative Action. Most people are unaware that, because of several decades of a relatively conservative Supreme Count, Affirmative Action currently exists in name only. Whenever I have been fortunate enough to serve on a search committee for a new assistant professor of sociology, I have been required to attend a seminar on Affirmative Action. We are simply told not to ask any personal questions regarding race, sexual identity, ethnicity, and so forth. That is Affirmative Action in the 21ˢᵗ century. White people sued in the courts claiming the fallacy of reverse discrimination. Although people holding power cannot discriminate against themselves, they frequently struggle, as hard as they can, to keep their privileges. The creative manufacturing of so–called reverse discrimination is an example of that struggle.

Likewise, whenever a sign language interpreter enters anyone of my classes for a deaf student, that is preferential treatment. If one of my students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder—or ADHD—(Arabic, اضْطِرَابُ نَقْصِ الانْتِبَاهِ مَعَ فَرْطِ النَّشَاط [MP3], ʾaḍ°ṭirābu naq°si ʾal•ʾan°tibāhi maʿa far°ṭi ʾal•hāšāṭ), Autism (Arabic, تَوَحُّد [MP3], tawaḥḥud), or learning disabilities (Arabic, عَوَائِق التَعْلِيمِيَّة [MP3], ʿawā⫯iq ʾal•taʿ°līmiyyaẗ) obtains extra testing time, that is preferential treatment. When my Blind (Arabic, أَعْمَى [MP3], ⫯aʿ°maỳ) students obtain recorded or Braille–coded testbooks, they are also receiving preferential treatment. The point of such treatment is to compensate for existing disparities or inequities. As such, many higher educational disability offices have been redesignated as Access Services or words to that effect. All students should reap the greatest advantages for their success.

I feel deeply grateful that, as an autonomous being, I control my own agency. My liberty, as a libertarian communist or socialist, is mine and mine alone. No other human being, including on NationStates, can take that agency and liberty from me. Perhaps I am missing something, but what is the alternative to social justice? Social injustice? The key is not to abandon social justice projects but to ground them in Marxist theory. A NationStates signature contains the conspiratorial line, “Social justice is a bourgeois plot.” Furthermore, when asked to define progressivism, the first member of NationStates quoted below characterized it with supposedly negative characteristics, while the second poster replied affirmatively to the comment:

On the other hand, after an apparent right–wing populist wrote me on NationStates, “Sooooo what does … [about] your being a libertarian communist? if you hate it in the U.S., why not move elsewhere? Or do you not have the means?,” I replied:

Oh, you are an advocate of America, love it or leave it. I don’t love any country. As I tell my students, what better country to be in, for a communist, than the evil American Empire. The only reason I would leave is laziness. I am not lazy.

Among many left–wing populists on NationStates, terms like SJW, regressive left, and, perhaps saddest of all, feminist have become shorthand articulations for everything I do not like—and then some. People use these designations, while rarely (if ever) defining them, and assuming that the people deciphering these postings will share the identical definitions as the original writers. Words, in and of themselves, lack significance, yet one makes up, concocts, some meaning within one’s own mind. Such jargons are convenient means to write or speak without ever saying anything. As one just recently awakened Autistic, new to the experiences of empathy and love, I adore these people and, what is more, deeply identify with them.

As this Autistic grew up, I was entirely unable to experience, or even to understand in any meaningful fashion, empathetically. Beginning around the year 2000, I had an extended series of breathtaking spiritual experiences, some of them during meditations and others during dreams and visions, which rapidy awakened me out of my plenary ignorance. I now feel blissfully condemned to partake, virtually routinely, in a life filled with empathy. These days, it disturbs me, often tortures me, to see feminists and others who have suffered being attacked, never loved, by socialist pretenders. Here is a typical, only sparsely edited, response which I made to a left–wing populist, on the NationStates forum, who participates in the unfortunate, and all–too common, right–wing mimicry of bashing both feminism and feminists:

“Have you heard of socialist feminism, Marxist feminism, material feminism, and anarcha–feminism? No, I have not been asleep at the wheel, as you charged. However, I am an academic communist, not a left–wing populist. This forum has made me aware of a massive rift on the left. As a a New Leftist beginning in 1968, I was somehow previously unaware of it. NationStates has proved to be an awakening for me and, to be honest, a quite difficult, but necessary, one. No academic communists I know, and I literally know hundreds, would ever dream of attacking feminism. We view feminists as our allies or potential allies. Seeing feminists as anything less betrays every principle I have lived by since 1968. I will not change.” Feminism, in its twin waves of women’s suffrage and women’s liberation, was decidedly the most successful social movement of the 20ᵗʰ century.

Indeed, 20ᵗʰ–century feminism was among the more triumphant enterprises over the long course of U.S. history. Was it perfect? Unequivocally, no. Was it revolutionary? Of course not. However, on both counts, so what? This social justice movement, while progressive and not Leftist, resulted in tremendous social, economic, political, familial, and occupational benefits for women. Even now, many of those gains have continued to unfold. The movement also layed the groundwork for diverse and numerous Marxist, anarchist, socialist, and communist feminisms which followed. Revolution would, ultimately, clearly be preferable to reform. By the same token, the accomplishments of the latter should not be diminished or attacked. Rosa, a feminist in her own right, would, I suspect, have been immensely proud of the extraordinary accomplishments made by Western feminism’s allies.

Another bogeyman of many left–wing populists is identity politics (or the politics of identity). My views are rather straightforward: If the politics of identity is a tactic for revolutionary transformation, or the sufferings of the subaltern or workers are amelioriated, I love it. Otherwise, I could not give a damn about politicizing identity. A politics of identity may sometimes have an emancipatory function. However, it must, in that case, serve as a thought bridge to transformational class consciousness. Such an identity politics pertains solely to an oppressed minority. The politics of identity, or identitarianism, championed by certain white supremacists, fascists, neonazis, and the alt–right is fit only for the septic tank or neighborhood sewer.

One of the self–defined fascists on NationStates quotes a sentence, in his forum signature, from the Italian fascist Julius Evola (MP3), 1898–1974. Today, on April 3ʳᵈ, 2018, he used the disparaging term, “Jap” for the Japanese people. I responded to him, “I would really, really appreciate it if you would not use that derogatory term for the Japanese people.” The fascist’s reply was “Get over it.” I reported this person’s words to the moderation team. The fascist was banned from NationStates for a single day. The moderator then wrote to the fascist, “… when someone points out that you’re using a potentially offensive word in a way that offends them and your only response is ‘get over it’ I have trouble seeing your intent as anything but to offend or annoy.” As someone who cares deeply about social justice, which is why I identify with Antifa, I am grateful even for small victories.

A neofascist on NationStates fancies himself a left–wing populist. He is not. A rattlesnake may say, “I am a scorpion.” Both animals are venomous, but the old rattlesnake remains. I, as a libertarian communist, am one of this person’s favorite targets of opportunity. Recently, I pointed out a mere truism, namely, that some, but categorically not all, National Bolsheviks (Russian, Национальные Большевики [MP3], Nacionalʹnye Bolʹševiki) or Nazbols (Russian, Нацболы [MP3], Nacboly) are fascists or third positionists. It was certainly not an original statement, and most reasonably well–read people would, I presume, be aware of that fact. His response to my comment? He called me—the Russian–Austrian child of Jewish parents and distant relative of persons assassinated in the Holocaust—an antisemite. Many people seem to lack the acumen needed to function as human beings.

I never received a response to my question, not that I expected one, but the neofascist replied:

Lol [laughing out loud]. Trying to handwave how it’s actually practised by modern cultural conservatives by demanding that we can only discuss it through a series of closed academic questions based around dictionary definitions, textbook references and what it’s allegedly ‘meant’ to be, rather than actually existing Sharia. It’s an exact repeat of the methods used in the intersectionality debate. Strap yourselves in and put your space helmets on lads, we’re heading back to the reality-abstracted lecture hall floating at the end of the universe.

〜 NationStates Forum. Jul 4ᵗʰ, 2018. Retrieved on July 5ᵗʰ, 2018.

Some of the jumble in words honestly escaped me, but I think I got the gist of it. I responded:

Came back for more after accusing me, the child of two Jewish parents and relative to people killed in the Holocaust, of antisemitism? No, I am confronting Islamophobia, as I always do and always will. It is something many, or perhaps most, libertarian communists do.

So, why, pray tell, does it bother you that I am opposed to Islamophobia? Do you support it? Oppose it? or what?

Most of us are phobic of transparent attempts to shut down criticism of oppressive cultural practices by writing off reality as inadmissible and demanding that debate centers only around your multilingual thesaurus and derail emporium. We’re also phobic of nonsensical thread policing where no–one is allowed to comment unless they proceed first through your irrelevant closed questionnaire first, at which point you hope everyone’s forgotten the original topic. It’s why no–one takes you very seriously. You may have success railroading your students due to the power-dynamics around your possession of the lectern, but your intellectually dishonest little schemes will not wash here and it's well past the time for you to realise this and come to terms with the fact that you're nowhere near as good at this as you think you are.

〜 NationStates Forum. July 5ᵗʰ, 2018. Retrieved on July 5ᵗʰ, 2018.

My retort:

Most of us is one of those little phrases people use when they have no evidence to back up what they are saying. For example, who is the us that you are speaking of? Everyone who posts in this thread? If so, I will pass. I am happy, as a libertarian communist, not to be a part of that us. And how in the world could you possibly know that “no–one takes … [me] very seriously”? I will simply tell you that your assessment is incorrect. Should you be, as you say, “phobic,” there are some highly effective remedies for that problem.

Nevertheless, I am unclear how you can, short of telepathy, know what most of us believe. Putting all that aside, your posting consists largely of a series of logical fallacies. I can assure you that I am far from being intellectually dishonest. Indeed, I have been accused of being brutally honest on occasion. Or is that a further example of your telepathy? I certainly believe what I say and say what I believe. Perhaps you are confusing you own views with mine or yourself with me? Moreover, I am not scheming, or could it be that you are engaging in conspiracy theorizing? I most certainly do not, as you have accused me, railroad my students. I practice what I preach in my classes — libertarian communism. That means, I focus on oppression, but I listen to all voices.

Finally, you are merely looking in a mirror. If you think that my critique of Islamophobia is policing, then your unending critiques of me (and anyone else you disagree with) — but especially me — is one of the clearest examples of policing I have seen in a long time. You spend much of your time dictating to me what I can and cannot (or should and should not) say. You also keep on returning to your gripe with intersectionality, which is one of the bulwarks of contemporary Marxist theory in academia. But, oh, I forgot, you don’t much like academia, do you? Come to think of it, what is it that you like? After reading all of your postings, I know what you hate backwards and forwards (including me). I have absolutely no idea of what you like or agree with.

“Criticism of me is criticism of all academia.”
“Telling me I can’t demand everyone pass through a gauntlet of functionally irrelevant closed academic questions before they're allowed to talk about contemporary issues on a discussion thread is the real policing. Stop bulli.”
“If you don’t like my shady behaviour you must just be a hater who doesn’t contribute to discussions. Never mind those tens of thousands of other posts, it’s all about MEEEEE!!!”

“I don’t think this particular article is of publishable quality.

〜 NationStates Forum. July 5ᵗʰ, 2018. Retrieved on July 5ᵗʰ, 2018.

Honestly, I don’t think that this neofascist has fully processed that others, and not only myself, have been reading his postings. Here is one final comment from me:

Well, you have evaded my questions, read into my postings things I have never said, and, instead, returned with additional insults. I think we shall go back to being nonconversant.

After I made a post highlighting the inseparability between libertarian communism and social justice warfare, I received a more–or–less friendly critique from still another poster. The poster thinks I should designate myself by her or his own neologism, progressivist. The misconception is that libertarian communism, as with critical realism, differs from Marxism–Leninism (Arabic, مَارْكِسِيَّة ـ لِينِينِيَّة [MP3], Mār°kisiyyaẗ–Līnīniyyaẗ; Hebrew, מַרְקְסִיזְם־לֶנִינִיזְם [MP3], Mạrəqəsiyzəm–Lẹniyniyzəm; Persian, مَاْرْکْسِیسْم لِنِینِیسْم [MP3], Mār°ḱ°sís°m Linínís°m; Urdu, مَارْکْسِزْمَ ـ لَینِنِزْمَ [MP3], Mār°ḱ°siz°m–Lēniniz°m; Guramukhi Punjabi, ਮਾਰਕਸਵਾਦ–ਲੇਨਿਨਵਾਦ [MP3], Mārakasavāda–Lēninavāda; Shahmukhi Punjabi, مَارَکَسَوَاد ـ لَینِنَوَاد [MP3], Mārḱasavāda–Lēninavāda; Hindi, मार्क्सवादी–लेनिनवादी [MP3], Mārksavādī–Leninavādī; or Bengali, মার্কসবাদ–লেনিনবাদ [MP3], Mārkasabāda–Lēninabāda):

No, just no. why not call yourself as ‘progressivist’ [sic], more elegant, and the concept of SJW is used as derogatory term. And from my perspective, ‘SJW’s hold mainly centrists views (RADICAL CENTRISTS(tm) without the fun or wisdom). For someone who doesn’t lives in the US or Europe, the ideals of ‘SJW’ people appear somewhat strange and something that only can happen in the ‘first world.’ Also antifa is bourgeois trash. Let it burn and found your own true commie militia asap.

〜 NationStates Forum. July 5ᵗʰ, 2018. Retrieved on July 6ᵗʰ, 2018.

Are you a Marxist-Leninist, a syndicalist, or a left populist? Generally, it is people in those categories who object to my views. I have been a communist since 1968, which is considerably longer than most people on NationStates have been alive. I have never been a progressive and never will be. Perhaps you should read up on libertarian communism and recognize that not all communists march to the beat of the same drummer. Antifa, which you call bourgeois trash (noting your misspelling), is an example of libertarian communism. It was actually started by the Autonomist movement, which is a libertarian communist tendency. Point: You dislike libertarian and left communism. So did [Vladimir] Lenin [Russian, Влади́мир Ле́нин, Vladímir Lénin; MP3]. He demonstrated his bigotry, replicated by the bigotry expressed by some people in this thread, when he called us an infantile disorder. Nevertheless, we are not going away.

My enemy is the capitalist world–system—as an intersectional cartology—with its sympathizers and the multidimentional dominations embedded in that system. If fascists, nazis, alt–rightists, nativists, and so forth sincerely choose to abdicate their odious ideologies for libertarian communism, I would welcome them with open arms. Vendettas are feable rationales for revolutions. Their goals, rather, are the transformation, emancipation, and efflorescence of the human lifeworld (German, Lebenswelt [MP3]). Since each one of us is a profoundly flawed individual, turning the other cheek is excusing mortal frailty. Following that course, hate is a stumbling block, not a stepping stone, to progress. Yet, serving one’s comrades and others is not being a doormat or, worse, a sycophant. If someone abuses you, or treats you immorally, only once, that time should invariably be the last time.

Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also ….

If left–wing populists, fascists, or Calvinistic presuppositional apologists wish to debate with you on their terms, flatly refuse. If you consent, they will win. They know their rules much better than you do. Long after you are frustrated, they will be talking up a storm. Insist that they they dialogue with you following your own directions. Lay out a regimen. Then never back down. Deftly lead them onto your turf of familiarity. Set out guidelines, and topics for discussion, which work to your advantage. In many cases, an unjustified self–confidence, sometimes even conceit, will seduce the other person into acceding to your own demands. It is child’s play. At that point, the dispute has, candidly, ended. You won the argument before it even got started. I did so, on one occasion, with a presuppositional apologist, in order to illustrate logic, or its abuse, and truth becoming mutually exclusive.

Bear in mind that general dictionaries are often useless with specialized vocabularies. Even the good ones have their shares of biases. They can be either subtle or overt. As a case in point, former U.S. President Barack Obama has been a moderately conservative responsive communitarian since he was a law student. However, to many Republicans, he was a communist. To me, only communists or revolutionary socialists, whether Marxists or anarchists, should be referred to as Leftists. However, I have a broader definition of left–wing. Anybody who is even slightly left of center, a category which would exclude Barack Obama, would fall under the last category. To make life interesting, I regularly have discussions with people who have vastly different definitions of terms than my own. Still, precious few things in life can be more grafiying than to be on the winning end of a debate:

My point is simple: You and I are real. Yet, words, possessing no substance, are not real. Words, that is to say, are not ontological or metaphysical entities but epistemologies or frameworks of knowledge. Rather than being objective or empirical entities, terminologies are merely pragmatic tools or instruments to facilitate human conversations. Those are some of the reasons why it is important and vital that we clearly understand the ways in which individuals are using words. Otherwise, people may think they are communicating with one another, and they literally are not. They may also believe that they agree or disagree with a given person, while the reverse is actually true. These scenarios, unfortunately, occur all the time. Experts in interpersonal communication refer to such misperceptions as noise. Moreover, cherish the value of offending people, if necessary, with accuracy.

A clique of over–rated pundits, hybrids of left–wing populism and neoconservatism, have launched a smear campaign against alleged regressive leftists. That deplorable pejorative assails to some degree the fact that many academic communists, myself included, refuse to condone imperialist offensives of so–called liberation in predominantly Muslim countries and are Islamophiles (Arabic, عُشَّاق لِلإِسْلَام [MP3], ʿušāq lil•⫰Is°lām), lovers of Islam. I publicly confess my sinfulness in this matter and ask, albeit sardonically, for absolution from these woefully misguided individuals. This wayward world, I suggest, has no place for the unscrupulous notions streaming from the collective consciousness of such individuals. The cause is Western imperialism. Islamism (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّة [MP3], ⫰Is°lāmiyyaẗ) is essentially the effect. Blaming Muslims for their oppression is just bigoted.

Almost all communists, from a broad spectrum of tendencies, despise Western imperialism. Claiming to be a communist while not hating Western imperialism, as the source of global capitalism, is a contradiction in terms. I like most Westerners I know, so that is not my reason for Western scorn. Sadly, some people have read little Marxist theory. They are what I often call word–of–mouth communists. Therefore, assorted people, who purport to be communists, unwittingly argue against communism. It is not their fault, but they are not well grounded in the primary sources. By immersing themselves in classical and modern communist theory, I suspect that a multitude would become even more dedicated. Still others might thoroughly repudiate communism. The conceivable results of receiving rigorous information, likely many and varied, are difficult, if not impossible, to predict.

Populists, whether to the left or to the right, often oppose diversity as political correctness (PC). Indeed, one finds PC both to the left (prioritizing politeness over honesty and frankness) and to the right (teaching creationism or intelligent design and prayer in public schools) of center. The push for diversity is, however, a recognition of our common humanity. The alternative to embracing diversity is social alienation and endless warfare. In this regard, a right–wing populist anti–intellectualism is particularly menacing. Many of its naïve proponents viciously attack evolution, minorities, immigration, humanly–caused climate change, or science in general, on the one hand, and promote unusual assortments of beliefs in irrational and unempirical conspiracy theories, especially the illuminutty Illuminati and the considerably more recent (from October, 2017) QAnon, on the other.

Populism should not be confused with what the general populace necessary believes. Rather, populism is a specific belief system which focuses on anti-intellectualism, a distrust of intellectuals, and a repudiation of cultural pluralism. Consequently, populism commonly subsists even in societies where the majority of its members are not themselves populists. The metastasizing of disenchantment with the modern world, academia, and critical thinking stir the flames of populism. A moribund capitalism interfaces with an ignorance on resolving pressing social problems and a shared sense of helplessness. The ultimate solution to the pestilence of populism will be the unqualified destruction of capitalism and the end to all its contradictions. That is certainly a tall order to fill, and it may literally take many hundreds of years to attain even the merest beginnings of a communist completion.

Critical pedagogy (MP3; or Arabic, عِلْمُ التَرْبِيَة النَقْدِيَّة [MP3], ʿil°mu ʾal•tar°biyaẗ ʾal•naq°diyyaẗ; or Hebrew, פֶּדָגוֹגְית הַבִּקָּרְתִּית [MP3], pẹḏāḡōḡəyṯ hạ•biqqārətiyṯ), from the lauded Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (MP3), 1921–1997, emphasizes conscientização (Portugese [MP3]), concienciación (Spanish [MP3]), conscientisation (French [MP3]), coscientizzazione (Italian [MP3]), conscientization (English MP3), or critical class consciousness. The French, conscience (MP3), may be rendered either as conscience or consciousness. Both nuances are found in Freire’s work. The broad base of today’s working class has, unfortunately, yet to encounter the emancipation of conscientization. Since nearly everybody, except for the power elite of oligarchs and plutocrats, has false consciousness, not just the working class and disenfranchized, nearly everyone can benefit from conscientization.

For a libertarian communist, there is nothing worse than the devastating blight of moral relativism or situation ethics. Depriving the individual of her or his moral compass makes that person less humane … and less human. A homo sapien, by a mere technicality, lacking a taint of humanity is no better than an untamed wild animal. Dynamic moral codes must be structured around liberation from domination. Any education not founded upon critical pedagogy, teaching for emancipation, is entirely a waste of time and resources. Virtuousness should be recognized, with one’s eyes wide open, as the innermost substance, or the principled fabric, of the universe. Moral truth is an ontological reality, not an arbitrary social construction. Moral realism’s polar opposite, moral relativism, makes combatting tyranny, in all possible worlds, pure frivolity. How does one disciminate good from evil?

Should the working class, as a whole, become militarized? I would say, “hardly.” Yet, much of that class—especially where I have lived in Middle America since 1993 as well as my previous seventeen–year residence in the American South—own huge stockpiles of weapons. In New York City, my hometown, such matters were either unknown to me or simply never considered, given the area’s strict gun–control laws. Anecdotally, any regional differences notwithstanding, most people I meet, wherever I have stayed in the U.S., despise communism with a passion. Such persons are certainly not ripe to become revolutionary Marxists. Arming them would be a disaster in the making. Consequently, out of sheer necessity, we will all depend upon, for our collective survival, a polity of true democratic centralism and a democratically controlled vanguard:

The indispensable conditions for the realization of Social Democratic centralism are:

The existence of a large contingent of workers educated in the class struggle.

The possibility for the workers to develop their own political activity through direct influence on public life, in a party press, and public congresses, etc.

These conditions are not yet fully formed in Russia. The first – a proletarian vanguard, conscious of its class interests and capable of self-direction in political activity – is only now emerging in Russia. All efforts of socialist agitation and organization should aim to hasten the formation of such a vanguard. The second condition can be had only under a regime of political liberty.

With these conclusions, [Vladimir] Lenin disagrees violently. He is convinced that all the conditions necessary for the formation of a powerful and centralized party already exist in Russia.

The issue of gun control has always been contentious among Marxists, including libertarian communists. My own observation has been, over the years, that most people with a strong opinion on the subject simply surmise that other people who call themselves the same name will automatically agree with them on every issue. As most people assuredly know, from their more general experiences, that is rarely true in any matter. I have heard the argument repeated, to a sickening degree, the all proletarians have guns. I have thoroughly rejected it. I think of nuts like Alex Jones—or who makes a good living posing as such—and his minions. My resolution is that access to weapons should be placed into the able hands of a proletarian vanguard, an institution endorsed by Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps the most brilliant and inquisitive mind ever produced within Marxist communism.

As a libertarian communist, not a left populist, I do not want weaponized enemies. Revolutionary communists alone should carry. I am unaware of any communist revolutionaries committing mass murder in universities. In the U.S., the National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully promoted an absurdity, that anyone can bring guns onto college campuses. If so, I might, albeit tongue in cheek, counter the NRA’s argument. Average citizens carrying guns have abetted multiple deaths upon deaths. Police officers, for their part, routinely assassinate unarmed Black women and men. As an aside, for some reason, sexism perhaps, the female victims of police brutality are rarely, if ever, headlined by the media. Why should I trust the cops? I have, as one unarmed by my own choice, remained unpersuaded. Many of the most appalling incidents have centered around the cops themselves.

The proletarian vanguard will, when the time arrives, distinguish between revolutionaries, who should have guns, and renegades. The point of gun ownership, for a libertarian Marxist, is revolution, not, as in the gun culture which misinterprets the U.S. Constitution as an entitlement to guns for their own sake. The founding fathers opposed an army and authorized armed militias in the Second Amendment. It was annulled by the army. Why, however, would a communist want their counterrevolutionary enemies, especially the police, to possess guns? Sadly, whenever this subject comes up, people engage in name–calling. Someone called me authoritarian. I may be many things, including an empathetic person, but an authoritarian is not one of them. Some people seem incapable of discussing any number of issues without lashing out at others. That is clearly not helpful for anyone.

To put it another way, what is the point of owning a gun, in a communist revolution, unless one is a revolutionary? Struggles against the capitalist system, as I understand Marxist theory, is the entire purpose of acquiring weapons in any hypothetical communist revolution. Its founders were not adherents of that asinine U.S. gun culture which has turned mass murder into a ritual. I suspect that they would have regarded this subculture as a form of capitalist disintegration or, perhaps, degeneracy. Nevertheless, any determinations of the sort will, I assume, be made, on the ground, by the democratic proletarian vanguard at the time. No one can possibly know the future. All I am doing, indeed all anyone can do, is to meekly speculate. Still, American communists should not confuse Marx, who never proposed universal armament, with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was asked what qualifies me as a libertarian communist. I wrote: Primarily the fact that I am a Luxemburgist―and Rosa Luxemburg critiqued Leon Trotsky and her personal friend Vladimir Lenin for their authoritarian tendencies, that I believe in Hal Draper’s socialism from below, that I reject the Stalinist socialism from above, that I am a critical realist as founded by the libertarian Marxist Roy Bhaskar, and that I firmly support the Antifa movement with U.S. roots in the libertarian Marxist autonomism of the New Left (Arabic, يَسَار الجَدِيد [MP3], Yasār ʾal•Ǧadīd; Hebrew, שְׂמֹאל הַחָדָשׁ [MP3], Śẹmōʾl hạ•Ḥāḏāš; Persian, چَپِ جَدِید [MP3], Čap•i Ǧadíd; Urdu, نَئِی بَائِیں [MP3], Na⫯ýí Ba⫯ýíṉ; Guramukhi Punjabi, ਨਵਾਂ ਖੱਬਾ [MP3], Navāṁ Khabā; Shahmukhi Punjabi, نَوَاں کْھَبَا [MP3], Navāṉ K°habā; Tajik, Шабакаи нав [MP3], Şabaka•i Nav; or Amharic, አዲስ ግራ [MP3], ʾÄdisə Gəra).

As a revolutionary communist, I am not a Gandhist. Only a libertarian communist revolution, not the practice of nonviolent resistance (originally Gujarati/Gujarātī, સત્યાગ્રહ [MP3], satyāgraha; Sanskrit, सत्याग्रहः [MP3], satyāgrahaḥ; or Hindi, सत्याग्रह [MP3], satyāgraha, “persistence in truth”), can ultimately transform the world. Strictly speaking, all civil disobedience would constitute nonviolent resistance, and, yet, on the other hand, not all nonviolent resistance constitutes civil disobedience. For instance, by wearing, as is my usual custom, communist or Leftist tshirts when teaching college classes, I am engaged in nonviolent resistance. I am not, however, involved in civil disobedience. Intentionally breaking the law is out of the question for me. Despite its limitations, in advancing emancipation, nonviolent resistance, if part of a larger struggle, can often be a suitable tactic.

To me, nothing in life can be more serious than revolution and the struggle against capitalism. However, violence should never be an activity which is treated with any degree of enjoyment. No benign individual would revel in acts of violence. To do so makes one less human. That is to say, violence is never undertaken for its own sake only. If, however, capitalism is to be eliminated, revolution is a practical, if deplorable, necessity. Schadenfreude [MP3), a copacetic German–to–English word for deriving pleasure from the sufferings of others, must be utterly despised by all true revolutionaries. Any supposed communist who equates violence with pleasure cannot really be a communist at all. Revolution is the ultimate undertaking in love and concern for human emancipation and global self–realization. The revolutionary has no enemies, only transitory opponents who may soon to be allies.

Revolutions are despised necessities if we want to see genuine social emancipation and self–realization in the world. Below is the term revolution translated into a number of languages:

With all due respect to anarchists, and I warmly consign many of them to the company of my Leftist comrades, libertarian Marxism is not a clone of anarchism or its disparate theories. Libertarian Marxism is soundly constructed upon a diversity of Marxian theories and philosophies. Although some anarchists selectively use Marxist theories, a cornucopia of anarchist theories exist, as well. Instead, any libertarian Marxism worthy of its salt must steadfastly suppport a nonauthoritarian or democratic communism and a communism or revolutionary socialism from below. Contrary to the horribly misbegotten Bolshevik (Russian, Большевик [MP3], Bolʹševik) project of the 20ᵗʰ century, which wrecked the lives of so many innocents, a proper libertarian Marxist communism places power, without fail, in the hands of the people, the proletariat and socially marginalized in particular.

Obviously, to be a left– or right–wing authoritarian, one needs to be, respectively, on the Left or the Right. Examples of the latter include Adolf Hitler (MP3) in Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini (MP3) in Fascist Italy. Although I disagree with the brutal, authoritarian tactics exhibited by Leon Trotsky (Russian, Лео́н Тро́цкий, León Tróckij [MP3]), born Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Russian, Лев Давидович Бронштейн [MP3], Lev Davidovič Bronštejn), after moving to North American, he became a Leftist. Yet, no one knows what would have become of the former Soviet Union had Lev, not Joseph Stalin (Georgian/Kartuli Ena, იოსებ სტალინი [MP3], Ioseb Stʼalini; or Russian, Иосиф Сталин [MP3], Iosif Stalin) whose legacy I despise, ascended to power. Lev’s rhetoric was dire, but, as with Stalin before his dictatorship, rhetoric is a faulty prognosticator of action.

The opposite of left–libertarianism is left–authoritarianism (such as Stalinism), not the simple use of force. There is nothing inherently wrong with force. Parents use it on their own children. I use it on my college students. Revolutionaries may, in some hypothetical future, use it on the bourgeoisie. That is an area in which libertarian Marxists and anarchists part company. I have no problem with verticalism per se. Most anarchists strongly oppose it and, in its place, advocate horizontalism. Marxists critique power as domination and imperialism. With aspects of anarchism I agree, but differing views of power have prevented Left regroupment between left–anarchists and libertarian Marxists. I have yet to come up with a workable solution, and perhaps there is none. That is unfortunate, since on the most important issue, eliminating capitalism, Marxists and left–anarchists see eye to eye.

Marxist communists and anarchocommunists have generally disagreed over whether communism should be achieved in two stages or in one stage. Anarchocommunists have historically rejected the Marxist two–stage theory of communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a common term, is not the way in which Marx and Engels most frequently described the intermediary stage. They regarded the first stage of communism (which Lenin later, unfortunately, called socialism) as communism with elements of the bourgeois state still present. More specifically, the proletariat collectivize the bourgeois state (first stage) then replace the state with further collectivization in an administration of things (second stage). Anarchocommunists have, on the other hand, advocated entirely skipping the first stage of communist development and advancing directly into the second stage.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective, of Mōšẹh ʾẠhărōn hạ•Lēwiy bẹn Hẹʿrəšẹʿl, founded the Libertarian Communist Party. Its doors are open to all member nations of The Confederation of Traditional Socialist Nations. The political party, including its leadership, is based upon strong democratic principles, whether direct or indirect. Among our party’s stated positions is that, while always empathizing with the poor, a universal basic income, as with social democracy in general, promotes false consciousness and, intentionally or not, throws breadcrumbs to the proletariat and subaltern. Revolution is forestalled. Please join the party, and move your nation to our great Confederation. It is one of the best–managed Leftist regions on NationStates. Although my recommendation is unimportant and irrelevant, I, nevertheless, still vouch for the region.

Left–libertarianism or libertarian communism includes libertarian socialism, commonly used by anarchists, and libertarian Marxism. Libertarian communists generally focus upon a panoply of factors which oppose true liberty in the intersectional capitalist world–system. Some other communist variants, by contrast, conceive of capitalism using an extremely shallow economism (economic determinism or reductionism). Likewise, communism absent universal liberation becomes an unrevolutionary communism of economism. To further specify my lexicon, libertarian communism could be a species of social justice warfare based on Marxist theory but surely not non–theoretically–based social justice warfare or progressivism. These stringent and well–nuanced distinctions, even if somewhat tedious to consider, are relevant to the subject at hand.

I truly could not care less about U.S. presidents, and their vain policies, and the Empire, a term popularized by Autonomist Marxists for America. Really, the only transformation productive for the proletariat is a revolution against capitalism. Here, I am using the term capitalism in the sense of both Immanuel Wallerstein’s world–system analysis and libertarian Marxist Roy Bhaskar’s demireality (disunity) or dialectical absence. Capitalism is, by definition, the intersections or junctions of oppression which are integrated into capitalist societies. Therefore, I firmly oppose economistic, or one–dimensional, constructions of capitalism. They are inadequate and incomplete. A simplistic economism is frequently advocated by many online pop communists. Capitalism, to the contrary, consists of all the causal mechanisms of oppression found in capitalist societies, not only the economy.

Hearken to the cries from a pair of valleys: “Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law,” yells Aleister Crowley. “Freedom for the subaltern,” I shout. U.S. (right–)libertarianism is abetted by pro–corporatists from such organizations as: the Foundation for Economic Education, the CATO Institute, The Libertarian Institute, the U.S. Libertarian Party, and a plenitude of others. This type of libertarianism is commonly associated with the retired member of the American House of Representatives Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent, with his son U.S. Senator Rand Paul. Some of these libertarians identify with anarchocapitalism (stateless capitalism) or Ayn Rand’s Objectivism―(right–)libertarianism mingled with atheism. The second major version of U.S. libertarianism, civil libertarianism, is illustrated by the progressive legal coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU).

American (right–)libertarians are frequently perturbed when familiarized with libertarianism on a global scale. Soberly, they now discern, their own philosophy is an international anomaly. Left–libertarianism is about one hundred years older than (right–)libertarianism. Rosa Luxemburg and Roy Bhaskar, these U.S. (right–)libertarians learn, are properly called libertarian Marxists. They espoused a outlook on liberty broader, and more transcendent, than most Bolsheviks. To many libertarian Marxists, the diverse oppressions are facets, one and all, of the ongoing tragedies wreaked by the capitalist world–system. Communism would rid us of these ideologies. On the other hand, Bolsheviks tend, with some notable exceptions, to support a pseudo–leftist approach to capitalism which excludes any consideration of these ideologies or else relegates them to a second–rate status.

As a left–libertarian, I strongly disagree with so–called (right–)libertarianism. As I said, the very term “libertarianism” was appropriated by the right from the Left. Yet, my major issue is that the (right–)libertarian construction of liberty is unfair and often authoritarian. Authoritarianism is, of course, common to a wide spectrum of ideologies, not only (right–)libertarianism. Nevertheless, among my sticking points is the conundrum that self–defined (right–)libertarianism is among those authoritarian ideologies. My contention is that (right–)libertarians often utilize what sounds like libertarian rhetoric, but their positions on outsiders—non–(right–)libertarians or non–nationals—are commonly authoritarian. In addition, I would never dream of suggesting that the oppressed, or anyone else for that matter, be deprived of the liberty to reside in whatever country they so choose.

The authoritarianism of (right–)libertarianism is frequently shameless and undisguised. The former member of the U.S. House of Representatives Ron Paul often waxes on the U.S. Constitution like he was Holy Ghost preaching about the Bible. I shall openly concede to having an absence of much affection for that Constitution. By the same token, one can endorse any given document without appealing to a virtually Christian fundamentalist literalism. I have, further, met some (right–)libertarians who have literally construed the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired text—bestowed by the grace and bounty of God. To put it another way, despite outward differences in ideology and tone between (right–)libertarianism and fascism, the two positions are often considerably closer—even when witnessed in the words and actions of particular individuals—than some might imagine.

(Right–)libertarianism is, in my view, a kissing cousin with right–authoritarianism. Bhaskar, regarded liberty, or libertarianism, as freedom from capitalism and all forms of oppression. That is about as distant from (right–)libertarianism, and from any (right–)libertarians I have known, as I can imagine. Perhaps almost all that right– and left–libertarianism have in common is the unfortunate, and slightly confusing, similarity in their names. Admittedly, a small minority of left–libertarians in Antifa have been willing to engage in violence in order to destroy fascism. I accept them as fellow libertarianisms while strongly dissenting from their tactic of punching people. I do not, nonetheless, consider (right–)libertarians to be libertarians. Yet, out of courtesy, I am willing to call them by that name. No matter what I happen to think, I accept that people have a right to define themselves.

Many of my students, who call themselves (right–)libertarians, have advocated for restrictions upon immigration, especially for Muslims, Latinos, and Black and Brown people in general. When these same students have done so, I have often pointed out the logical inconsistency of their positions on immigration with liberty (and with the plaque mounted on the Statue of Liberty). Usually, their response has been that these individuals threaten the liberty of Americans. When I have asked for evidence, I either get none, some diversionary tactic, or a half–baked conspiracy theory. Moreover, why are Americans entitled to a greater degree of liberty than people immigrating or visiting from other countries? To me, that is authoritarianism, without qualifiers, certainly not libertarianism. Right– and left–libertarians, plain and simple, cannot even agree upon a shared definition of liberty:

On the other hand, I would argue that capitalists, racists, sexists, fascists, neonazis, and so forth should be prevented by an international state or an international federation of regions or nations from oppressing the proletariat and the subaltern. However, to me, such a policy is left–libertarian and anti–authoritarian. Based upon having had many experiences with (right–)libertarians over the years, their positions often appear considerably closer to fascism than to what I personally consider to be libertarian (left–libertarianism). There are, as such, a considerable number of self–defined libertarians who are currently serving in the U.S. Congress. Despicably, many of them are opposed to universal health care. To me, the willingness to deprive people of the liberty of health care is, in itself, about as anti–libertarian as I can imagine. (Right–)libertarians, in short, are authoritarians.

I never call myself a libertarian but always a left–libertarian. No matter how pretentious it might sound to me, (right–)libertarians are entitled to define themselves as “libertarians.” That is their business, not mine. In the U.S., the number of left–libertarians might fit into a lecture hall. Yet, the same scenario is not found in Europe and other locations. (Right–)libertarianism is, as I see it, a very bourgeois philosophy. The rights identified as such are ordinarily those of the bourgeoisie, not the poor. I have yet to meet a (right–)libertarian who supported, for instance, the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. The reason is that (right–)libertarians will fail, as a rule, to entertain the issue of whether liberty and free–market capitalism are compatible. Many of them reside in a bubble which entirely excludes the disenfranchized. That is a recipe for oligarchy or plutocracy.

Libertarian communism has virtually nothing in common with libertarianism in the usual American sense, such as Ron Paul. Rather, a libertarian communist opposes authoritarianism in all its forms. That autarchy includes capitalism and its seemingly boundless contradictions of oppression. A true libertarian communist would never ever even consider attacking feminists or SJWs. Entertaining the thought of such indecent attacks is, to me, thoroughly disgusting. In a sense, libertarian communism takes American libertarianism and turns it upside down on its head. Instead of capitalism and extreme individualism as the solutions to our problems, communism and nonduality become the only answers. My freedom ends where my fist meets someone else’s face. Any activities which violate the liberty of others, especially oppressed peoples, can, and must, be regulated and contained.

Capitalism is an aggregated structure. Hence, it must be understood and addressed holistically. Islamophobia, for instance, is one of the foremost phantoms currently being utilized to justify capitalist imperialism. Piecemeal remedies for domination which focus exclusively, or nearly so, on the economic or financial dimensions of capitalism are doomed to failure. If libertarian communists genuinely care about establishing a global, human–centered civilization, one focused on the ethical principle of eudaimonia (Ancient Greek, εὐδαιμονία [MP3], eu̓daimonía, “good fortune” or, rather loosely, flourishing), they must consider, relationally, the diverse ways in which capitalism destroys human lives. Since capitalism is authoritarian, a (right–wing) libertarianism becomes impossible. Anything less is sorely insufficient. Thus, American (right–wing) libertarianism is a contradiction.

Some people on NationStates, I have discovered, subscribe, sincerely I presume, to an authoritarian philosophy I have, over time, come to describe as a one–dimensional communism. To them, communism concerns the class struggle and nothing more. Communists who, thus, focus on other issues, whether imperialism or social justice, are, to them, somehow not true communists. These multi–dimensional communists are, in effect, compromised. They have, so say the one–dimensional communists, taken their eye off the ball. If that is the measure of a communist, I suppose I am a square peg in a round hole. Fortunately, I am in good company. Neither Karl Marx (MP3) nor Friedrich Engels (MP3) were true communists either. For they, like myself, examined a broad range of issues. Arguably, Engels, in his final years, was moving toward an institutional approach to scientific socialism.

One might contend, however implausiblly, that the redistribution of wealth is authoritarian. I vehemently disagree. The concentration of wealth in a small class of plutocrats or oligarchs seems very authoritarian to me. On the other hand, a more comprehensive term, which includes the massive redistribution of wealth, is at our disposal. It is called a communist revolution. The mythical Robin Hood can, depending upon one’s perspective, be seen as an authoritarian or a revolutionary. To me, he is clearly the latter. Libertarian Marxist activists and revolutionaries are, in a sense, all Robin Hoods. Through revolution, wealth is taken from the rich, collectivized, and used to establish a libertarian and an emancipatory civilization. That is the eudaimistic world I desire for my descendents. Concerning the voluntary redistribution of wealth, my only question is, So how is that working?

Private property, on the one hand, and individual possessions or personal property, on the other, are entirely distinct. The former is the ownership of the means of production or the capitalists’ privatized materials or tools for producing goods and services. Cellphones, personal computers, tablets, chairs, medication, clocks, and other items of entirely personal utility are excluded. People would be completely at liberty to use and dispose of these items as they wish. Communism is freedom. With the end of privatization—and the sublation, synthesis, negation, or absenting of capitalism—comes the rise of producer, worker, and distributor coöperatives. These firms would be publicly run, owned, and managed, collectively, by the proletariat. The managers themselves, if they are required in a particular firm, would be immediately accountable to, and be supervised by, the workers.

With the elimination of capitalism, social institutions which serve the public should be collectivized. For instance, without exception, all education, beginning with preschool and continuing on to the postgraduate level, should be completely free. Educational institutions would be transformed into coöperatives. They will be owned by the communities or regional entities they serve. In addition, there needs to be an agency, higher than the locality, which would insure that schools are not permitted to teach pure pseudoscience, like creationism, climate-change conspiracies, and, according to U.S. President’s Donald J. Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway in an interview with Chuck Todd on the U.S. network NBC, “alternative facts” (MP3). It is one thing for adults to believe in this nonsense. We must together care for the children. It is another thing for that garbage to be taught to them.

One might ask, how can education and other public services be free? Albeit unlikely, in the short term, one taxes the wealthy at exorbitant rates. If these tycoons choose to relocate in a more profitable economic climate, laws would be enacted to prevent them from conducting business with entities in one’s country. Yet, that solution prescribes aspirin to a patient with terminal cancer. Over the long haul, the only feasible remedy is a revolution, of some sort, which would overthrow capitalism and replace it with libertarian communism or libertarian socialism. As members of society act in their highest interests, the question of compulsion becomes irrelevant. Still, given free agency, communism, unlike the revolution, can never be guaranteed.

Moreover, regarding the issue of prostitution, I will begin by saying that the liberal–progressive defense of the so–called oldest profession is one of the reasons I have no interest in being a liberal or progressive. Eliminating capitalism, not the liberal–progressive issue over whether my views could be seen as patronizing, dominates my concern. My eagerness to see capitalism eradicated transcends any thoughts of possibly offending sex workers. In any event, I would assume that anyone in that line of work would have a thick enough spine not to be so easily outraged by me. Prostitution is not only the selling of one’s body. It is, in addition, the objectification of one’s body for the prurient interests of others. Sadly, whenever sex workers are organizing, I presume they are looking for better treatment and higher wages rather than to eliminate the rottenness of the capitalist world–system.

I have not advocated for an outright prohibition of prostitution but, instead, the assurance that prostitutes are not oppressed and objectified. My concern, common among libertarian Marxists, is that the inability of women to support themselves, and often their children, forces some women to sell themselves to men. A basic human right must be not to be coerced, by economic circumstances, into prostitution. Its necessity, selling one’s own body for the pleasure of others, is among the ultimate contradictions of capitalism. No one should be compelled, by the simple necessity of survival, into prostitution or, for that matter, into any other line of work. Prostitutes, unless they have additional favorable options for economic support, are objects of oppression. To be clear, however, my opposition to prostitution is communistic, not for popular socially conservative moralistic reasons.

After the global nuclear calamities to come, ending capitalism, the world will, by necessity, consist of self–sufficient communities. During the first stage of communism, when vestiges of the bourgeois state are still present, a strong central government might be necessary to get the house in order. My hope, however, is that as we gradually progress toward the second phase of communism, the state will give way to a federation or administrative order. At that point, centralization will be superseded by localism. That is not to say that a central government, an administration, will cease to exist. However, it will not serve as a dominating force. Instead, given the enhanced maturity amongst members of society, more power will be delegated to the grassroots. The federal government, or whatever it would be called, will offer the guidance and required coordination between diverse quarters.

Communist internationalism is not inherently incompatible with national or local governance. On the other hand, communist internationalism is at odds with nationalism (as in white nationalism), racism, ethnicism, casteism, tribalism, or nativism. The point is not to snub the power of diverse geographical areas. Rather, the intent is to assure that that the inhabitants of those communities, particularly the proletariat and the subaltern, are united under the banner of proletarian internationalism. In other words, internationalism must take priority over loyalty to all other geographical regions. Sources of division, such as racism, must, therefore, be thoroughly intolerable to the inhabitants of a libertarian communist world–system. Critical pedagogy, which teaches people to understand and fight all the sources of domination, should become the universal approach to education.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels utilized the term class in a highly nuanced manner. They referred to the relationship of a specified sector of the population with the means of production. That is to say, people are either owners or chattel. Under capitalism, the owners are the capitalists, while the chattel are the workers. Once capitalism is expelled, there will, by definition, be no classes. However, the term class often refers, colloquially, to levels of income. Marx and Engels did not focus on that subject. Neither poverty nor wealth can exist in a communist society. Even so, if people are receiving sufficient earnings to meet their needs, there is no reason why the general populace cannot receive only slight variations in compensation. Although a plurality of social classes will no longer be tolerated by society, some differences in the one class of humanity could not be permitted.

Lamentably, the majority of what has passed for left–wing governance, during and since the long bygone era of Stalin, have been permutations, whether directly or somwhat obscured from view, of his so–called red fascism:

Stalin, perhaps defensive as a Soviet Georgian, not an ethnic Russian, became a knee–jerk Soviet nationalist. As a faux–left Third Positionist, he discovered that dark domain where Right and Left begin to disintegrate, and he embraced it. Máo•Zé•Dōng or Mao Tse–tung (Mandarin Chinese, 毛泽东 [MP3]), who said that he agreed with Stalin on most matters, was also a Third Positionist. Clearly, red fascism is merely a variant of fascism. The newfangled designation of Third Positionism does not eliminate the fascist demireality, or disunity, clearly observed in those systems:

Stalin made no attempts to broaden the Bolshevik revolution to other countries. In point of fact, shortly after World War II, when, of course, the Soviet Union and the U.S. were allies, Stalin proposed continued rapprochement with the U.S. For whatever political reasons, the U.S. declined his offer. Clearly, Stalin, having just expended considerable blood and treasure in destroying the Third Reich, was looking for peaceful coexistence, not a global proletarian revolution. What true communist leader would pursue an alliance with the U.S., the center of global imperialism (Arabic, إِمْبِرِيَالِيَّة العَالَمِيَّة [MP3], ⫯im°biriyāliyyaẗ ʾal•ālamiyyaẗ; or Hebrew, אִימְפֶּרְיָאלִיזְם הַעוֹלָמִי [MP3], ʾiməpẹriyāʾliyzəm hạ•ʿōlāmiy)? As the seeds of failure had been planted in the Bolshevik Revolution from the start, with Stalin tending to the watering hole, the demise of the U.S.S.R. should have been anticipated.

Practically speaking, Third Positionism, in its multiple varieties, is frequently little more than a euphemism, or a cover, for neofascism. As one of the disgusting ideologies which have constituted the Right, Third Positionism has regrettably remained with us to until the present day. The primary features of Third Positionism have included: an ownership of the primary means of production by the state, an extreme and a fervent nationalism, a clear preference for hardcore political authoritarianism over even a semblance of republicanism, and a seemingly boundless appetite for militarism. In some geographical regions of the present–day human family—throughout much of the Western world, including parts of Europe, North America, and Australasia—we have been witnessing the cultural diffusion, perhaps even the rebirth, of Third Positionism, and other like–minded ideologies.

Two possible exceptions to the overarching dominance of Third Positionism in the 20ᵗʰ century, albeit not libertarian communist, were the Titoism (Serbian/Srpski, Титоизам [MP3], Titoizam) of Marshal Josip Broz Tito (Serbian, Маршал Јосип Броз Тито [MP3], Maršal J̌osip Broz Tito) in the former Yugoslavia (Serbian, Југославија [MP3], J̌ugoslaviǰa) and then the Castroism (Spanish/Español, Castrismo [MP3]) of Fidel Castro (Spanish [MP3]) on the island nation of Cuba (Spanish [MP3]). Hence, with the rise of the New Left in Europe and the U.S., through a resurrected libertarian communism or socialism, came the last great hope for the libertarian Left. It failed dreadfully. Beginning just then, in the early 1970s, the world fell into a rapid downward spiral. The power of the dialectic should never be underestimated. Time is not on the side of the capitalist world–system.

My issues of contention concerning Maoism (Arabic, مَاوِيَّة [MP3], Mawiyyaẗ; or Hebrew, מָאוֹאִיזְם [MP3], Māʾōʾiyzəm; Mandarin Chinese, 毛泽东思想 [MP3], Máozé•Dōng•Sīxiǎng; or Cantonese Chinese 毛泽东思想 [MP3], Mou4•Zaak6•Dung1•Si1•Soeng2) are multiple. The proletariat, for Mao, replaced the peasantry. China was unprepared for Marxist communism, so Mao rewrote Marx to make China fit. (Marx cannot be evaluated, since his communism was never implemented.) Mao, as a tyrant, once claimed that Stalin was 70% correct. I could ask about the 70%, but that inquiry is needless. Examining Mao’s mode of running Mainland China provides us with our answer. A more pragmatic, yet perplexing, question concerns the 70%–30% ratio. Why not 100% agreement? Perhaps Mao simply did not want to give Stalin all of the credit for his work, but I am only surmising.

The criticisms I have of Lenin follow from Rosa. She was quite friendly with Lenin who visited her at her home. Lenin especially liked Rosa’s cat Mimi. Still, Rosa was intellectually harsh on Lenin’s views. Although Rosa used force throughout her life, she critiqued Lenin as well as Trotsky for what she regarded as their authoritarianism. Red Rosa’s thoughtful analysis turned out to be a prophecy or an inner vision. My only response to the accusation she leveled at Lenin is that, since she was assassinated before Stalin took over from Lenin, she was spared the ultimate tragedy. Rosa also strongly argued that Lenin, like Trotsky, had developed a formulaic approach to communism. Rosa was more open-minded than Lenin and a true intellectual. She struggled for hours upon hours to resolve issues with Marx’s texts. Rosa was not content to blindly accept the views of others.

Lenin was much more superficial than Rosa in his treatment of Marxist theory. Prior to assuming leadership of the former Soviet Union, he read Marx, much of the time, entirely at face value. Then, after becoming premier, Lenin began to throw Marx’s ideas, or what little he grasped of them, into the trashcan. By replacing Marx’s communism from below with an authoritarian state capitalism from above, Lenin preordained the demise of so–called 20ᵗʰ–century communism. From the moment that Lenin made his break with Marx’s communism from below, the destinies of Bolshevism, Maoism, and most of the rest were sealed. For Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, the obituary for alleged 20ᵗʰ–century communism was etched into the æthers.

Marxist communism is often illustrated as forming a horizontal scale with left–libertarianism (socialism from below) situated on one side and left–authoritarianism (socialism from above) at the other extreme. According to several online quizzes—take them or leave them—I am an intense left–libertarian. Some of the results were already provided. I fully repudiate left–authoritarianism and all that it represents. In fact, I would take what I wrote one step further. The Left and authoritarianism are completely incompatible and, indeed, entirely irreconcilable. One cannot simultaneously be a Leftist and an authoritarian. A genuine Leftist must support liberty and condemn tyranny, in all of its multiple varieties, even when it masquerades as Leftism. Therefore, and I am confident that I will gain intellectual foes by setting forth this perspective, an authoritarian Leftism is an oxymoron.

The New Left was a amalgamation. However, we were, with few exceptions, anti–authoritarian or, in other words, left–libertarian. After the New Left disintegrated, its proponents spun out in various directions. Some struggled, in futility, to keep the New Left alive. Others migrated to the more disgusting parts of the right (hello, David Horowitz). Still others became Maoists, Trotskyists, other Leftists, or even sell–out yuppies (young urban professional people). Captivated by an abiding concern for social justice, which is not at all an unusual interest for Autists such as myself, I made a variety of turns, shifts in my worldview or intellectual conversions, related to the communist tendencies which I successively adopted. The life–long process began through my involvement with the New Left while in middle school:

the U.S. New Left’s left–libertarianism through the Students’ Democratic Coalition (1968–1969), open to secondary as well as to college and university students.

the post–Maoist Third–World Maoism (Arabic, مَاوِيَّة مِن العَالَم الثَالِث [MP3], Mawiyyaẗ min ʾal•ʿĀlam ʾal•Ṯāliṯ; Hebrew, מָאוֹאִיזְם בְּעוֹלָם הַשְׁלִישִׁי [MP3], Māʾōʾiyzəm bə•Ōlām hạ•Šəliyšiy; Persian, مَائُوئِیسْمِ جَهَان سِوُّم [MP3], Mā⫯ū⫯ýís°m•i Ǧahān Sivvum; Urdu, تِیسْرَا دِنِیَا مَاؤُوِزْمَ [MP3], Tís°rā Diniyā Mā⫯wuwiz°ma; Guramukhi Punjabi, ਤੀਸਰਾ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਮੌਸਮ [MP3], Tīsarā Sasāra Mausama; Shahmukhi Punjabi, تِیسَرَا سَسَارَ مَوْسَمَ [MP3], Tísarā Sasāra Maw°sama; Mandarin Chinese, 第三世界的毛主义 [MP3], Dì•Sān•Shìjiè•de•Máo•Chǔyì; or Cantonese Chinese, 第三世界毛澤東思想 [MP3], Dai6•Saam1•Sai3•Gaai3•Mou4•Zaak6•Dung1•Si1•Soeng2). Considering that my present views of this tendency are rather negative, my initial attraction to it is, even for me, difficult to fully grasp. I was, to be honest, drawn to Third–World Maoism out of empathy for the impact of Western capitalism and imperialism on developing countries. Still, my dabblings only persisted for two or three weeks. I was promptly dissuaded from the current after rejecting the notion that the revolution must begin in the Third World. Contrary to the usual view of Third–World Maoists, the dialectic is international. No one can predict where revolution will start. The U.S. itself is ripe for revolution. However, instead of a revolution, much of the socially alienated proletariat chose a capitalist, Donald Trump. A common Third–World Maoist question is, Why has revolution not occurred in the West? Well, my counter is, Why has it not occurred anywhere?